FROM COP TO CRUSADER

My fight against the dangerous myth of “lie detection”

by Doug Williams

www.POLYGRAPH.com

COPYRIGHT © 2014 Doug Williams, All Rights Reserved.

www.polygraph.com

ISBN: 978-1-935689-73-7 (print)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Trademarked names appear throughout this book. Rather than use a trademark symbol with every occurrence of a trademarked name, names are used in an editorial fashion, with no intention of infringement of the respective owner’s trademark.

The information in this book is distributed on an “as is” basis, without warranty. Although every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this work, neither the author nor the publisher shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in this book.

This eBook was created with ePubMobi.com/go

Note to Reader

This book is a recounting of actual events that have occurred during my crusade against the multi-billion dollar scam called “lie detection” perpetrated by the polygraph industry. It is written to the best of my memory. But as someone once said, “Memory is a complicated thing, a relative to the truth, but not its twin.” So, the characters, conversations, and entities depicted may be composites or fictitious.

It will soon be forty years since I was first overcome by the insanely self-destructive urge to tell the truth about the “Lie Detector”. If only I had known then what I know now; if I had known how long it would take, how expensive and dangerous it would be, how misunderstood I would be, and how much real suffering would be involved, I don’t think I would have had the courage or more correctly, the stupidity to “blow the whistle” on such a powerful and corrupt industry. But I started the fight, and I’m going to finish it – or at least I will fight it with my last ounce of strength! What follows is a report from the battlefield, with details of battles waged and victories won against the industry that utilizes the insidious, abusive and intrusive Orwellian instrument of torture called the “Lie Detector”.

Doug Williams

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Prologue

Chapter 1 – “I QUIT”

Chapter 2 – A DECLARATION OF WAR

Chapter 3 – CRUSADING ON A SHOESTRING BUDGET

Chapter 4 – BECOMING OBSESSED

Chapter 5 – MY FIRST BIG BREAK

Chapter 6 – “NOW YOU’RE MESSIN’ WITH A SON OF A BITCH”

Chapter 7 – TAKING IT TO THE STREETS

Chapter 8 – THE CRAZY CRUSADER GOES TO WASHINGTON

Chapter 9 – GAINING MOMENTUM

Chapter 10 – A CHANGE WOULD DO YOU GOOD

Chapter 11 – GOING BIG TIME

Chapter 12 – FROM WILD EYED CRUSADER TO WELL DRESSED LOBBYIST

Chapter 13 – I WIN – YOU LOSE

Chapter 14 – A WELL DESERVED VACATION

Chapter 15 – UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Chapter 16 – BACK IN THE FIGHT

Chapter 17 – SAME OLD SNAKE OIL – DIFFERENT BOTTLE

Chapter 18 – BIG BROTHER IS HERE! AND HE IS REALLY PISSED OFF!

Seeing threats, feds target instructors of polygraph-beating methods

Americans’ personal data shared with CIA, IRS, others in security probe

Read The Wrong Book; Get Tracked By Government

Read The Wong Book 2; Enforcement Of National Security Religion?

Teach People to Beat a Polygraph? Go to Jail.

Teaching “Polygraph-Beating” now a Federal Crime

"Lie Detector" questioned as federal spending soars

Polygraph crusader under federal investigation

Submitted by Charlton Stanley, (aka Otteray Scribe) guest blogger

Federal Official Declares That Anyone Who Speaks Out Against Lie Detector Tests Should Be Criminally Investigated

From The Going A Bit Far Department…

Chapter 19 – COUNTERMEASURES? THAT’S JUST BULLSHIT!

Chapter 20 – THE BATTLE CONTINUES…

Appendix

Additional Media Coverage

Prologue

If you don’t know anything about the polygraph, read this book and you will be enlightened, infuriated, and entertained. This is the ultimate “whistle blower” book that chronicles the exciting, dangerous, and sometimes humorous adventures of Doug Williams and his crusade against the multi-billion dollar scam called lie detection; what the inventor of the polygraph referred to as “Frankenstein’s monster”.

Before December of 1988, three out of every four people in private industry in the U.S. had to pass a polygraph test in order to get or keep a job; after December of 1988 it was a violation of federal law. How did that happen? Legislation to prohibit this type of polygraph testing had been introduced every year since 1972, and every year it failed to pass – every year, that is, until 1988. Why did that legislation finally succeed? Many say it was primarily due to the efforts of Doug Williams. As a matter of fact, Doug Williams was given the VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE award by the ACLU for being “the one person most responsible for the Employee Polygraph Protection Act becoming a Federal Law”.

This book is an exciting behind the scenes account of Doug’s first very controversial appearance on national television, his intensely explosive testimony in congress, and his work to build grass roots support to outlaw the use of the polygraph. His crusade against the polygraph industry became an obsession. For many years he lived in the back of a 1967 Chevy panel truck, moving from city to city putting on seminars and going on radio and television talk shows to promote support for legislation that would outlaw the use of the polygraph. It tells of how he exposed the polygraph as a sick joke on CBS 60 MINUTES; in this classic investigative report, three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened. Doug has been featured on most of the major news programs, and on all of the major television and cable networks including CBS 60 MINUTES, CBS NIGHTWATCH, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS, CNN NEWS, FOX NETWORK’S EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN, NBC DATELINE, FOX NEWS, CNN NEWS STAND, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL, BBC, TLC, and SHOWTIME PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT! You can watch these on the MEDIA page of www.polygraph.com. Doug has also been featured in over 1000 newspaper and magazine articles, thousands of blogs, has been interviewed by hundreds of local TV news and talk shows, and personally appeared on over 500 radio talk shows. He has lobbied in the US House of Representatives and the Senate, and was a member of the Office of Technology Assessment studying the validity of the polygraph as a “lie detector”. This book tells of what Doug Williams has done; the dangers he has faced, his hard won victories, and some of the humorous incidents that occurred along the way. And it tells of all he continues to do to fight the dangerous myth of lie detection.

If you are going to take a polygraph test and you think the polygraph is actually a “lie detector”, you are sadly mistaken; you will see that you must educate yourself about how dangerous the myth of lie detection really is because over 50% of truthful people are called liars by the polygraph. If you have ever taken a polygraph test and failed, even though you were telling the truth, read this book and you will understand why. If you are in a position of authority and you require people to submit to a polygraph test, or if you are a polygraph operator, you already know why you are considered by many to be a contemptible scoundrel; but you will probably read this book anyway just to see what Doug has done and what he plans on doing.

Now, please enjoy reading about the quixotic adventures of this courageous crusader as he tells you his story in his own words.

(The Editor)

Chapter 1 – “I QUIT”

Most stories start at the beginning, but my story will start at the end. My life as a crusader started with the end of my life as a police officer. When I became the first, and so far, the only licensed polygraphist to ever blow the whistle on the scam called lie detection it really did go against my nature. I was a cop, not a crusader! I am not cut out to be a crusader; this whole thing is embarrassing to me. I don’t tell stories for the sake of sensationalism. And believe me; I know a lot of damn good stories. I worked in the White House Situation Room for three years and read every message that was classified EYES ONLY POTUS. I was the head of the polygraph section of the Oklahoma City Police Department Internal Affairs Unit for seven years. You bet I know some stories – stories of intrigue and corruption that would astound you! But this story needed to be told, and I was the only one who would be willing to tell it. This is the story of how the polygraph industry abused millions of people in private industry, and how the government - local, state and federal - continues to intimidate and humiliate millions of people with it. My decision to tell the truth about the “lie detector” and expose the pervasive abuse perpetrated by the polygraph industry began my life as a crusader, and it ended my life as a cop.

I was on the fast track to success, armed with a degree in psychology and criminology, a solid background of honorable military service in a very important position, a ten year police veteran with seven years’ service as a police polygraphist; the next step was the FBI or a high ranking position with one of the alphabet agencies. But instead of following that well-planned career path, in 1979 I resigned my position as a Detective Sergeant with the Oklahoma City Police Department and began my crusade against the polygraph industry. The reasons I resigned when I had a very promising career ahead of me were numerous. But I guess the main reason was that I was just burnt out and disillusioned. I knew that what I did for a living was a fraud, and I was sick of perpetrating the myth that the polygraph was a “lie detector”. I knew the “lie detector” wasn’t! Wasn’t valid, wasn’t reliable, wasn’t’ humane, wasn’t even a lie detector! So, woe is me, I blew the whistle! In an instant, I changed from cop to crusader.

I knew that I had to make that change; I had to quit doing what I was doing, not only because it was wrong, but because of what it was doing to me. I knew I was literally destroying myself physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Most of the polygraph operators I knew were alcoholics, drug addicts, or had very serious mental illness. I knew this was directly attributable to the work they did as polygraph examiners. Getting confessions by means of the polygraph was a dangerous business; getting people to confess by using this method of psychological torture took its toll on the torturer as much as the tortured.

I had studied the history of the men who created this insidious machine known as a "lie detector"; John Larson and Leonarde Keeler. Both of these men also suffered as a direct result of their association with and use of the so-called lie detector. John Larson, a serious scholar with a PhD in science, is credited with being the inventor of the “lie detector". He spent many years trying to prove that the polygraph was scientifically valid as a method to detect deception. He was unsuccessful in doing that; and as a result, at the end of his life he went mad and fell into a deep state of despair. Just before he died, Larson is quoted as saying, “Beyond my expectation, thru uncontrollable factors, this scientific investigation became for practical purposes a Frankenstein’s monster, which I have spent over forty years in combating.” Leonarde Keeler, Larson’s protégé, and self proclaimed inventor of the first polygraph machine was later despised by Larson because he considered Keeler to be a shameless self promoter who had turned the polygraph into a carnival sideshow. Larson, who did not want the polygraph to be widely used until he had tested it and proved that it was scientifically valid and reliable, was troubled by Keeler’s unsupported claims that the polygraph could detect deception. In fact, near the end of his life, Larson was writing a book that he claimed would expose Keeler as a thief and a liar who had stolen the ideas of others, and put his name on a polygraph machine that he had not created. He planned to expose Keeler as con man who had turned the polygraph into a carnival sideshow, and a shameless self promoter who promoted his Keeler polygraph machine on “cheese-cake type news interviews”. Keeler also had his own form of mental illness, he was very jealous of his wife, and drank heavily. On December 11th, 1940 while he was interrogating a person, according to witnesses, Keeler literally, "cracked up". A doctor was called and it was discovered that Keeler's systolic blood pressure shot past 200, (something that I had experienced myself on more than one occasion). Keeler then quit using the polygraph, divorced his wife, and died alone and drunk at the age of forty six. His obsession with his “lie detector” ended up killing him - the double edged sword of torture by “lie detector” had taken its toll. I knew that a fate similar to that which befell these two men also awaited me if I did not make a drastic and immediate change.

Many of my mental problems stemmed from the fact that I, like Larson, knew that the notion of a "lie detector" was a myth. What I didn't know then was that I would do the same thing as Larson; I too would spend “over forty years in combating” this "Frankenstein's monster". The difference is that by the time I took up the fight, the “Frankenstein's monster" had grown to mammoth proportions and the myth of the “lie detector”, fueled by propaganda similar to the kind Keeler used, was well entrenched in the American psyche as an infallible means of detecting deception. After all, the myth of the “lie detector” had been building since the early 1920’s when Keeler patented his “Keeler Polygraph” and became the personification of lie detection in America. In 1930, a man named William Marston, (who also wrote the comic book Wonder Woman), added to the myth of “lie detection” when he claimed to be able to catch liars by tracking a person’s blood pressure. The polygraph, like Wonder Woman’s iconic “lasso of truth”, became the American way to detect deception: and it had decades of propaganda behind it.

I knew that honest truthful people were called liars. I knew that liars were called truthful. I had discovered a way to beat the polygraph test. I learned how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will, and I knew I could teach anyone how to do the same thing with just a little training. If there was a simple way to control every tracing on the chart at will, so as to always produce a perfect truthful polygraph chart; that fact alone was prima facie evidence that the polygraph was not a “lie detector”. I could prove that the polygraph was simply a crude reaction recorder – that it was only capable of recording blood pressure, pulse rate, breathing, and the sweat activity on a person’s hand. I could not presume to say whether or not a person was lying or telling the truth by simply monitoring these three things.

The polygraph is not a lie detector; it is just a machine that allows the operator to monitor a person’s heart rate, sweat activity, and breathing while he asks them questions. Regardless of what polygraph operators say, this crude machine has not changed significantly since it was invented in the early 1920’s. When I explained this to people, they were astonished, their eyes would widen with disbelief - they all thought the polygraph was a much more complicated and accurate scientific instrument; some even thought it could actually read their minds. But the sad fact is the polygraph is an antiquated instrument which is only capable of recording basic physiological reactions to questions. In other words I can watch you breathe, watch your heartbeat, and watch the sweat activity on your hands - a change in any of these tracings was labeled as a "reaction". If this "reaction" happened to occur after you answered a relevant question, you would be called a liar.

I knew there was no such thing as a “lying reaction”. I knew that the notion of lie detector was based on a false premise. The premise upon which a lie detector rests is that when you lie, you produce a reaction that indicates deception. But the problem with that premise is that in order for you to call that reaction indicative of deception, it must ALWAYS indicate deception. And I knew that was not the case. I knew that the polygraph was only capable of recording a nervous reaction or what is commonly called the “fight or flight” syndrome. I knew from experience that these same "reactions" were often caused by simple nervousness and had nothing to do with deception - as a matter of fact they seldom indicated deception. More often than not, the reactions the polygraph would brand as a lie were caused by many other innocent stimuli such as fear, embarrassment, rage at having been asked the question, or just simple nervousness caused by the accusatory nature of the question. And I had a real problem with labeling a person as a liar just because they experienced the symptoms of the fight or flight response when they answer a threatening and accusatory relevant question.

The polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation tool, but it is a great “confession getter”. I got thousands of confessions by using this psychological billy club to intimidate people into confessing.

For over seven years I had been interrogating people eight hours a day. I had administered thousands of polygraph examinations. I ran every kind of test imaginable – criminal, pre-employment, and internal affairs investigation exams. All I did was run polygraph examinations every working day - sometimes as many as ten in one day. My job was to make people afraid not to tell me the truth. It is very easy to terrorize people when you have a polygraph instrument setting on the desk between you and your victim. I could smell the fear on my victims. Fear stinks. I've heard the smell described as a mixture of shit and spinach. That is pretty close, but basically it smells like really bad body odor. I smelled the stench of fear in my office every day for over seven years. It permeated the walls. It was there when I got to work in the morning and it still lingered when I closed up the office at the end of the day. I got sick of smelling it. I was a great interrogator. I scared the hell out of people. I was relentless. I even went so far as to have one man come back seventeen times until he got so sick of looking at me he finally confessed. I knew early on that the polygraph was not a lie detector but I also knew it was a great way to intimidate a person; which is exactly the reason it is still being used today!

It has been noted in studies done on polygraph operators, that the nature of their work subjects them to a disproportionately high amount of stress. As a matter of fact, one such study was done on me in 1973. It was a simple study, conducted by one of the universities in Oklahoma City. They would simply check my blood pressure in the morning, and again at the close of the working day. My blood pressure was consistently 30 to 40% higher at the end of the day than was at the beginning. On a few occasions my systolic blood pressure, like Keeler's, shot past 200; the medical students who were doing the study, suggested I seek medical attention because I could easily have a stroke. That is no wonder, since many have described a polygraph examination as torture in the fourth degree, and as I have said before the torturer is also punished in the process.

This reminds me of a story told by Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist who served the French during the Algerian War of Independence. He wrote about the colonizer and the colonized, the oppressor and the oppressed, the torturer and his victim. In it he tells of a French policeman involved in torturing Algerians. The policeman had constant recurring nightmares; he often would beat his wife and children often for simply contradicting him. That was something he had never done prior to his role as an interrogator/torturer: "we almost wanted to tell our victims that if they had a bit of consideration for us they would speak out without forcing us to spend hours tearing information out of them. To all the questions they would say: ‘I don't know.’ So of course we have to go through with it. Today, as soon as I hear someone shouting, I can tell you exactly at the stage of questioning we've got to. The thing that kills me most is the torture. You don't know what it is. It is very tiring. But you can't let the bird go after he’s softened up. It's a question of personal success. You have to be intelligent to make a success of that sort of work. You have to know when to lay it on and when to lead off. You have to have a flair for it." And I definitely had, "a flair for it". I was a great interrogator, I seldom if ever failed to get a confession when I set out to do so.

After seven years of screwing with people's heads, I got sick of what I was doing to people, and I got sick of what it was doing to me. I was drinking heavily; it took a lot of whiskey just to get my nerves settled, and my conscience dulled enough to pass out for a couple of hours of sleep at night. I was beyond burned out. I was stark raving mad; a raging lunatic with a badge and a gun!

I had few if any friends, because police officers generally only associate with other police officers and since I was assigned as a Detective Sergeant running polygraphs tests for the internal affairs unit as well as criminal and pre-employment tests, I had narrowed my circle of friends down to a big fat zero. No one wanted to associate with me, and I can understand why. My office was originally located a couple of doors down from the chief's office in the main police headquarters building, but the loud and abusive language I used during many interrogations disrupted all the people on that floor. As a result, they moved my office across town to the training center where I could rant and rave to my heart’s content without scaring the hell out of everyone within earshot of my office.

I was not alone in my condition; many, if not all of the polygraph examiners I knew also had the same severe mental problems; many were alcoholics, some abused drugs, and all of them were paranoid to some degree or another. The polygraph victimized both those who operated it, and those who had to submit to it. Many polygraph operators were haunted by the realization that the polygraph was not a scientifically sound instrument, and I think some of them still had enough of a conscience to feel guilty about how they frightened people during their interrogations and intimidated them into making all sorts of admissions; some true and some false. None of them trusted the results of the polygraph tests and they all knew that it was no more accurate than the toss of a coin, so they tried even harder to get suspects to confess or to intimidate job applicants into saying things that would disqualify themselves from employment. Polygraph operators worked hard to become good interrogators in order to show that if the polygraph wasn’t exactly a “lie detector”, it was certainly a valuable interrogation tool. I often said it was better than a cattle prod at encouraging a person to confess or make damaging admissions. The lie detector test is indeed dangerous to anyone who submits to it, and to anyone who relies on its results, because information obtained under duress is seldom reliable.

I knew things were only going to get worse for me if I continued, so I quit. I didn't make a big deal out of it – one Monday morning I went to my office typed up letter of resignation, took it to the chief's office, put the letter, along with my gun and badge on his desk, turned around and walked out the door. I was single, I had little money saved, I had no debt, and no responsibilities – in short, I had nothing to lose, so I had no reason to stay in a job that I hated.

When I quit the police department, I called a reporter I knew from the local newspaper and told him that I had quit the police department and explained the reasons why I was quitting. I also told him that I was going to call a news conference in one week and that I was going to blow the whistle on the abuses in the scam called “lie detection”. I told him about some of the abuses I and other polygraph operators had perpetrated, and that I was going to do everything in my power to put the polygraph industry out of business. I told him the polygraph was the longest running con game in the history of the country, that it was rotten to the core, and that I was going to mount a crusade to put a stop to the abuse. I told him I was going to be the very first polygraph examiner to ever tell the truth about the "lie detector". He was very excited, and promised to tell everyone he knew in the media - television radio and newspapers.

Chapter 2 – A DECLARATION OF WAR

I rented a conference room at a hotel just down the street from the state capitol building where all the senators and representatives called news conferences. All the local news media, newspapers, radio and television, showed up at the news conference, as did many polygraph examiners from Oklahoma City and surrounding areas. A friend of mine, who was a police chief at a local department, acted as moderator; and I embarked on my crusade against the polygraph. I used a volunteer to demonstrate that the polygraph was just a crude instrument that was easily manipulated. I told them the polygraph, when used a "lie detector", is nothing but a sick joke. I told the representatives of the media that I was going to blow the whistle on the abuses perpetuated by this evil, Orwellian industry.

During that news conference, I pointed out that there were many polygraph operators in the audience, and I invited any or all of them to come join me on stage and debate me on the subject of the validity of the polygraph as a lie detector. When the cameras turned and panned the audience, every one of the polygraph examiners covered their faces. Some buried their heads in their hands, some ducked down behind the people in front of them, some even got up and hurriedly left the room, taking care to keep their backs to the camera. Not one polygraph operator accepted my offer of a debate. I looked right into the cameras and said, “That just about says it all doesn’t it folks? Polygraph operators are like cockroaches – shine a light on them and they run for cover. They know they are frauds. They know the polygraph is not valid as a lie detector, and if they could defend their position that the polygraph as a “lie detector”, why didn’t they take the opportunity to do so?”

I continued, "I'll tell you exactly why these polygraph operators will not debate me about the validity of the polygraph. It is simply because they know what I have said is true; the basic premise upon which the polygraph is based is faulty. The reactions that they say indicate deception are often just caused by nervousness; and nervousness does not always equate to deception. As a matter of fact I have found that only about 50% of the time do these reactions in fact indicate that a person has lied. The rest of the time they are just caused because the person is fearful or nervous. But, in order for the polygraph to be a lie detector, these reactions that they say indicate deception must ALWAYS indicate deception; not half the time, not even 90% of the time, ALWAYS. And, in truth and in fact, they don’t; most of the time they are caused by any number of innocent stimuli.”

I then began telling some horror stories of polygraph abuse. I told them about polygraph operators who would brag about testing fifty people to fill three job openings. What that meant was that most of these innocent truthful people were falsely labeled as liars, just so the polygraph operators could charge the employer for more tests. Aside from my job with the Police Department, I also worked part time for a private polygraph company administering pre-employment polygraph examinations for local employers, so I had firsthand knowledge of the abuses in the polygraph industry. The company I worked for encouraged us to fail as many people as possible so as to be able to charge the employer more money for administering more polygraph examinations. This was a common practice among private polygraph examiners. I made a point of emphasizing that I was not pointing a finger of blame at all the other polygraph examiners, that I was not wrapping my robes of righteousness about me and saying all these terrible things about all those other bad guys. I was confessing that I, Doug Williams, did all those things too, and that I was now doing my best to make restitution for all I had done by bringing these atrocities to light.

The uproar caused by this news conference was immediate and very intense. This was the first time any licensed polygraph operator had dared to confront this industry. The risk I was taking by doing this in 1979 was greater than you would imagine. Three fourths of the people in private industry had to take polygraph test to get a job; and often they had to take the test periodically to keep their job. The polygraph was greatly feared by the people who had to submit to it. Polygraph operators were greatly respected and even loved by those who required others to take it. And the polygraph operators who administered the tests were raking in millions of dollars every year.

As a result of that news conference, I was invited to appear as a guest on very popular talk show broadcast by KTOK, the largest AM station in Oklahoma. I laid out my reasons for leaving the police department, and detailed my objections to the use of the polygraph instrument, as a "lie detector". I also explained what I planned to do in my crusade against the polygraph industry, and how I was going to try to get a federal law outlawing lie detector tests; particularly as a condition of employment in the private sector. And with that, my crusade against the so call “lie detector” was launched.

Everyone, including my family, thought I was crazy, and they were right I most certainly was. It was crazy to leave a career that I had spent years preparing for. It was crazy to think I could stop an industry that was licensed by the state. It was crazy to think that all I had to do was tell the truth and everyone would believe me. The myth of the lie detector was well established in the American psyche, and it had decades of propaganda behind it. All that, coupled with the fact that the polygraph was considered infallible by a majority of the population as well as the media, made the polygraph the final word on whether a person was truthful or deceptive. What few detractors it had were considered to be unpatriotic troublemakers, or just disgruntled people who were angry because their lies had been exposed by the polygraph. It was unheard of for anyone in a position of authority to question the polygraph, especially a police polygraph examiner.

But I had a plan, and it seemed perfectly logical to me at the time. I would launch a three-pronged attack against the polygraph industry. The three prongs of this attack would be education, legislation, and litigation. I hoped people would believe me, since I had the credentials, and could speak with authority on the subject – after all, I was a licensed polygraph expert. As a matter of fact, I was and still am, the only licensed polygraph examiner to ever tell the truth about the so-called “lie detector”.

After I quit the police department, I moved to Houston Texas. I had been working on a plan to fight the use of the polygraph with the ultimate goal of destroying the polygraph industry by implementing the three-pronged attack of education, litigation, and legislation. With regard to education, I wrote a manual entitled, “HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH". This manual described in detail exactly how to beat the polygraph examination. In this little manual I explained the difference between relevant and control question and how to control every tracing on the chart so as to always produce a perfect truthful chart.

I knew how to pass a polygraph examination, even when I deliberately lied, and I knew I could teach others to do so – and my little 40 page manual was very easy to understand. But I had to make sure it would work; I had to put the “Sting Technique” to the test in a real world setting. So I began applying for jobs that required pre-employment polygraph examination. In 1979 when I first started my crusade against the polygraph, there were over three million polygraph examinations being administered annually. There were over ten thousand polygraph examiners, each running as many as five polygraph examinations a day. The Yellow Pages in all the major cities were filled with listings for polygraph firms. The polygraph industry was a multi-million-dollar scam. Well over two thirds of the people in private industry had to submit to a pre-employment polygraph examination in order to gain employment. And many had to take the test every six months to prove they were good and honest employees. So to test my theory, I simply began applying for jobs that required polygraph examinations as a condition of employment.

I would apply for a job, fill out the application, and lie about everything including my name. The prospective employer would then schedule me for a polygraph examination. I would show up for my polygraph examination, show the polygraph examiner my application and fill out his pre-employment questionnaire. He would then have me sign a waiver form requesting the polygraph examination and absolving him of any liability.

The polygraph examiner would conduct a pretest interview and then administer the pre-employment polygraph examination. During this pretest interview, they would ask all sorts of questions, including sexual preferences, religious affiliations, memberships and clubs and organizations - every type of question imaginable was asked. Many of these questions were in violation of federal law – employers were not allowed to ask these types of questions of a prospective employee, but they circumvented federal law by hiring a polygraph examiner to ask these questions for them under the guise of a polygraph examination.

During my first six months in Houston while testing the "sting technique", I took over twenty polygraph examinations, each given by a different polygraph operator - I lied on every single question, and passed every one of them.

Every time I passed a polygraph examination with the different examiner, I would tell them who I really was. I would tell them, "My real name is Doug Williams; I am an ex-police Detective Sergeant from the Oklahoma City Police Department. I am also a licensed polygraph examiner and have administered over six thousand polygraph examinations. I have lied to you on every question you have asked. And, I have been able to pass your polygraph examination, in spite of lying on every question. I just wanted to let you know, I beat you. Remember my name; you will be hearing a lot more from me in the future because I am going to put you out of business.”

The reactions from the polygraph examiners ran the gambit from fear to rage. One polygraph operator even threatened to call the police. I laughed at him and asked him what he was going to say, that I beat his test? I had a lot of fun and a few scary moments, but I proved the “sting technique” worked every single time.

Now that I knew my technique worked, it was time to embark on the education phase of my crusade.

Chapter 3 – CRUSADING ON A SHOESTRING BUDGET

I had depleted all my savings by the time I proved the validity of the “sting technique”, so I had to find a way to make a living. I didn’t know how to do anything; and I realized that I had no skills that would be of any value in the workplace. I had been in the military and on the police and that is all I knew. I finally got a job as an apprentice machinist at Cameron Iron Works in Houston Texas; that was a humbling experience for a man of my age, with my background and education. The factory was noisy, and filled with smoke; it was nothing but a sweat shop. But it paid well and had a liberal leave policy. I worked the second shift from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. This gave me plenty of time during the day to begin my phone calling and letter writing campaign.

During the day I would brew a pot of hot coffee, fire up a Marlboro red, write letters, and make phone calls to the offices of members of the congress and the senate, both state and federal, unions, and the ACLU. In these letters I would include information about my background, my credentials as a polygraph expert, and a copy of my manual "HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH". I also contacted talk show hosts; television programs such as CBS Night Watch, CBS 60 MINUTES and many others. In the letters and phone calls, I explained my objections to the use of the polygraph as a lie detector. I contacted anyone and everyone I could think of who would assist me in my crusade. I even gave them all permission to copy my manual and distribute it for free to all their members or to anyone who was subjected to polygraph testing. The ACLU told me that they received more complaints about the polygraph than anything else.

I did everything I could think of in an attempt to generate interest in my crusade against the polygraph, and I was beginning to gather some support. My goal was to outlaw the use of the polygraph, particularly in private industry, as a condition of employment. That was where the most damage was being done and where the most innocent people were being hurt. The date was 1980. It would be eight long years before the Employee Polygraph Protection Act was passed into law.

But, as time went on, my efforts to achieve my goal of outlawing the use of the polygraph began to bear fruit. I started getting some response to my letters and phone calls. There were a few newspaper articles written about my crusade, I was invited to appear on a few radio talk shows and debate polygraph examiners about the validity of the polygraph as a lie detector, debates which I always won, hands down. Many of the radio producers told me that when the subject of the polygraph was announced the call lines would light up with callers anxious to talk to me and to tell their own polygraph horror story. And I would always tell the talk show host to let the victims talk; they had the most compelling stories. People's lives were being ruined, truthful people were called liars. People who simply applied for a job were subjected to intrusive intimidating polygraph examinations administered by rude, overbearing, obnoxious polygraph operators. Over the years, I have been on literally hundreds of radio and television talk shows, and not one person has ever called in with anything positive to say about their polygraph experience.

I often referred to polygraph operators as verbal voyeurs because of all the questions they asked – questions about a person's sex life had nothing to do with whether or not they would make a good cashier at the local convenience store, yet these questions were routinely asked. I argued that an eighteen-year-old girl applying for a job as a bank teller should never be subjected to this type of interrogation. And when the phone lines were opened the victims of the polygraph vented their wrath on the polygraph and the operators.

I had many debates with many different polygraph examiners over the next several years. But I seldom had the same polygraph examiner debate me twice; because I always made them look like fools. It was simple for me to win the debates because all I had to do was tell the truth, and that would expose the pseudoscience of their profession.

The polygraph operators were at a distinct disadvantage when debating me since they were the ones who were lying. They were the ones perpetrating a fraud and a scam. I would simply point out that the basic premise of the polygraph as a lie detector was faulty. The premise of the polygraph as a lie detector is that when a person lies, certain physiological reactions occur. These reactions include an erratic breathing pattern, an increase in blood pressure and pulse rate, and an increase in the sweat activity on the hand. When I debated polygraph operators, I would simply point out that these very same reactions can be caused by any number of innocent stimuli. While it is true that 50% of the time when you tell a lie, your breathing becomes erratic, your blood pressure and pulse rate increase, and your hands become sweaty. It is also true that 50% of the time that very same physiological reaction can be caused by simple nervousness. I would point out that there would be a great deal of money saved by employers if they would just flip a coin – heads your prospective employee is lying or tails he or she is telling the truth. Since it is a proven scientific fact that the polygraph is no more effective and reliable, as a lie detector, than the toss of a coin, I would ask the employers why not just use a quarter and save all that money you spend on these polygraph con men? I would point out that business owners were victimized by these scam artists almost as much as the employees who had to submit to their tests.

The more radio talk shows I was on the more often I was invited. I was even getting on some of the national radio talk shows, but at that time, most of them were local – each major city had its own group of talk show hosts. I was becoming the go to guy on the subject of polygraph testing, and when the polygraph was in the news, the producers would contact me. One producer told me that it was getting more and more difficult to book a polygraph examiner who would debate me or even come on to talk about the polygraph test when it was in the news. I explained to the producers that polygraph operators preferred to keep their profession a mystery because it was such a scam. They knew as well as I that the polygraph was not a “lie detector” and that it had no sound scientific basis. And the more often I told the truth about the scam and exposed the polygraph industry as nothing but a con, the more progress I made in my quest to destroy the myth of the "lie detector".

I was also making quite a few enemies. It is dangerous to try to destroy a multimillion dollar business. And in the late seventies and early eighties the polygraph was held in high regard and feared by many people.

But I continued my letter writing and phone call campaign while working the night shift at Cameron Iron Works. I was doing OK, and my crusade was progressing nicely, but nothing lasts forever. Cameron Iron Works manufactured oilfield equipment, and in 1981 the oil boom went bust and I was laid off. Now I had to try to make a living while at the same time continuing my crusade against the polygraph. I could not find another job that would give me the freedom of time off when I needed it and I was getting fairly well-known in the Houston, Texas area - especially by polygraph examiners who hated my guts. So, it was time to make another move.

In 1981, I moved back to Oklahoma City and took a job with Chris Eulberg, an attorney who had been a police officer with me. We were in the same recruit class in 1969. He was now an attorney, and he offered me a job. He also said he would pay my way through law school if I would come to work for him. I took him up on his offer, and enrolled in the Oklahoma City University law school. I also continued my crusade against the polygraph industry, by starting to work in the area of litigation – the third prong of my three-pronged attack - education, legislation, and litigation. I talked my friend into filing a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Halliburton. One of their employees in the purchasing department was fired for failing a polygraph examination. This was the first lawsuit of its kind that I knew of, and we were way ahead of our time, but we went all out and gave it our best shot. We filed the lawsuit, deposed the executives in Halliburton, and got a lot of press coverage in newspapers, television and radio. You can read some of these articles in the appendix of this book. Ultimately however, the suit was dismissed. I will not say it was because of a corrupt judge who was in the pocket of the big oil company, but it certainly appeared that way to me. On the positive side though, it did get a lot of publicity for my crusade. I continued to be invited to appear on local television and many local and national radio talk shows.

At that time, F. Lee Bailey had a syndicated series from Columbia Pictures television, produced by Ralph Andrews. It is interesting to note what Jerry Ray, brother of James Earl Ray, said about this show after he appeared on it. He said, "I've taken five lie detector tests in my lifetime. I lied on all five, and I passed all five. One of those five tests happened back in the eighties, on a popular television show called lie detector, hosted by famous criminal attorney F. Lee Bailey. The person who actually administered the test to me – on national television – was a man named Ed Gelb, widely regarded as the best polygrapher in the business at the time. On that show, I was asked if I'd ever been involved in a bank robbery, and I answered no, which was a lie. I'm not saying that I'm proud of having been involved in a bank job; I'm just saying that I had been involved when asked me on the lie detector show and at the end of the show, Bailey announced that I had passed the polygraph test. So much for the great F. Lee Bailey and so much for the validity of the polygraph test. F. Lee Bailey also offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could beat the polygraph. My attorney friend, Eulberg, helped me draft a letter to the producers and the network broadcasting Bailey's show LIE DETECTOR. We wrote the letter on Eulberg’s law firm’s stationary, and in it I challenged Bailey with the statement that I could beat the polygraph test easily and demanded an opportunity to prove it and to collect the $50,000 reward he offered. I signed the letter, Eulberg witnessed it, had it notarized, and we sent it UPS next day delivery. I don't know if it was coincidence or not, but the show was canceled the very next week. I went to law school for a couple of semesters while working with my friend in his law firm but soon the money for tuition ran out because of the poor economy, and my priority was my crusade against the polygraph, not becoming an attorney, so I had to move on.

It was time to make a decision. Was I going to have a normal life, or was I going to continue my crusade against the polygraph industry? It was becoming obvious that I could not do both. So I decided to make the crusade my top priority. I vowed to continue to do whatever it took to outlaw the use of the polygraph in private industry no matter the cost.

Chapter 4 – BECOMING OBSESSED

Some states had already outlawed or restricted the use of the polygraph as a condition of employment. But what was needed was a federal law because employers would just send prospective employees to a state that allowed polygraph testing. So I began thinking about how to get the Congress to finally pass a law that would protect all the people in the country who worked private industry, and were subjected to polygraph tests as a condition of employment. The Congress had tried to pass such a law every year since 1972, and every time it failed.

My fight against the use of the polygraph was becoming an obsession. I could not believe that the polygraph was still being used on millions of people even though I had proved it was worthless. I began to think of myself as a guerrilla soldier fighting behind enemy lines on a search and destroy mission. I was going to take my polygraph crusade and my “dog and pony show” on the road.

With that in mind, I outfitted myself with what tools I could afford so as to continue my fight. I took what money I had, sold my car and bought a 1967 Chevy panel truck. It was faded white with a big dent in the left side. It had two front seats, no side windows in the back, and two back doors. I put carpet down on the bare metal floor in the back, rigged a cot to fold down from the side, bought a small camping porta potty, a hotplate, an ice chest, and containers for freshwater. I bought a foot locker to keep my papers and copies of my manuals in; it also doubled as a desk for my portable manual typewriter. I could sit on the edge of my fold down bunk, and type; that way, even when I was on the road, I could continue my letter writing campaign from the back of the van. I loaded all my earthly possessions in the back - copies of my manual, files of letters, names and numbers of contacts in the media - everything I would need to continue my crusade wherever I went. I named my new vehicle "Moby Dick" because it reminded me of the legendary great white whale.

I was now a mobile guerrilla commando – waging a one man war against the polygraph industry. I stayed in Oklahoma City where I had some contacts, so that I could start networking and building a support group of like minded people to help me with my crusade to outlaw the use of the polygraph. I had a friend named Tom Brown who was building a prototype energy efficient house. He had a great idea, and the money to build it, but he needed able-bodied laborer to help him since he was getting too old for manual labor. I made a deal with him to camp in Moby Dick while I assisted him in constructing his house. He agreed to that and also agreed to pay me a small salary. Once having secured gainful employment and place to camp, I started contacting people who could assist me in my crusade.

First, I went to the headquarters of the ACLU in Oklahoma City where I met Shirley Berry who was the state director. I told her of my crusade and what I had been doing so far and she actually began jumping up and down and clapping her hands. She gave me a big hug and told me that I could make use of her office and facilities whenever I needed them. She also promised to introduce me to local union leaders and others who would help me get the word out about the polygraph abuses and help me with my crusade.

For the next two years, I worked my little construction job and continued my crusade against the polygraph. I camped out in Moby Dick while helping my friend build his house. I enjoyed working with my friend, but the conditions in Moby Dick, while adequate, were far from luxurious.

I was soon rescued, and thanks to the good graces of a young nurse who was introduced to me by my brother and sister-in-law, I was able to greatly improve my living conditions. She invited me to move in with her and I gladly accepted. She not only provided me with a place to live, she was a great help with my crusade. She was very supportive of what I was trying to do. And so with her help, I continued my phone call and letter writing campaign. She took pity on a burned-out ex-cop who had embarked on an impossible, quixotic crusade against a multi-million-dollar industry. Seven years as an interrogator, an internal affairs investigator and polygraph examiner had taken its toll on my nerves. And the stress involved in this impossible crusade was in some ways even worse than the stress I dealt with as a cop. But I have always found that action is an antidote to stress, so I intensified my attack on the polygraph industry.

I was also helped a great deal by the ACLU, the FOP and other police unions, the AFL-CIO, various Methodist churches, and other individuals who encouraged me in my crusade against the polygraph and promised to help in any way they could to put an end to the abuse. I had my own polygraph instrument and began conducting seminars explaining how the polygraph was not a lie detector and giving tips on how to pass it. Remember, in the early 80s, millions of people had to submit the polygraph examinations to get a job and take what polygraph examiners call “periodic tests” to keep the job. If you worked as a clerk in a convenience store, a teller in a bank, a route salesman for beer or soft drink companies, a clerk in a retail store you were required to take the polygraph tests. The list of polygraph victims numbered in the millions, because three fourths of the employees in private industry were subjected polygraph examination.

Through the offices of the ACLU, the churches, and the unions I was able to get access to union halls, church basements, and conference rooms in various hotels for my seminars. The ACLU and the unions spread the word to their members about what I was doing and invited the people who had to take polygraph test to attend the seminars. I would often go to banks and convenience stores and tell people to spread the word that I would be giving a free seminar teaching people how to pass a polygraph test at such and such location at such and such time. I would encourage them to spread the word to anyone who had to take a polygraph test. Before the seminar started, I would make sure everyone in attendance had a copy of my manual, "HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH". I would bring my polygraph, put it on a table in the front of the room, and make the statement that I could teach anyone how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart in five minutes or less.

I would then look around the room and try to find the most skeptical people there. I would look directly at them and say, "You don't believe a word I'm saying do you?" Often the answer was a simple “No”. I would then say, “Well, let me prove it to you.” I would invite them to come up to the front, and help me demonstrate.

I would hook the volunteer up to the polygraph instrument, and explain what the polygraph recorded as I put the attachments on them. I would put the blood pressure cuff on their left arm and explain that the polygraph could record their blood pressure and heart rate. I would put the graph tubes around the volunteer’s chest and stomach, and attach the GSR electrodes to his fingers. I would direct the audience to look at the exhibits in the manual – telling them to look at Exhibit A to see what the polygraph records.

My presentation would go something like this: “The polygraph is not some kind of a mind reader; it is not a magical "lasso of truth" like the one Wonder Woman used. In fact, the self proclaimed inventor of the polygraph, a man named Marston, actually wrote the comic book Wonder Woman – that should show you what a joke the polygraph is. And what makes him even more of a fraud is the fact that he did not invent anything; he actually stole the idea from Dr. John Larson who was the true inventor. And the real irony is that Dr. Larson called his invention a “Frankenstein’s monster”, and tried to stop it from being used as a “lie detector” because he knew it did not work. The polygraph was invented in 1921, and has not changed since it was invented. The polygraph is simply a crude reaction recorder and the reactions that would brand you as a liar are often caused by nothing more than simple nervousness.

Let me tell you how I came to learn how to beat the polygraph. When I was on the police force, my only job was to run polygraph examinations. I learned early on in my career that the polygraph often called innocent truthful people liars simply because they had a nervous reaction on a relevant question. This "lying reaction" is shown in Exhibit B in the manual. As you can see this reaction is simply an erratic breathing pattern an increase in the GSR or sweat activity in your hand and an increase in blood pressure and pulse rate. Polygraph examiners will tell you that this reaction always indicates deception but I know that this very same “lying reaction” can be caused by any number of innocent stimuli – fear, embarrassment, rage at having been asked the question in the first place – even simple nervousness can cause you to have a reaction that would brand you as a liar.

The way to pass a polygraph examination is to be able to produce a reaction to a control question and show no reaction to the relevant question. I was once asked if I being a polygraph expert could beat the polygraph. I began to seriously ponder that question. Remember I was a polygraph examiner for the Oklahoma City Police Department for over seven years. I knew the difference between the relevant and control questions, and I knew what the breathing patterns looks like on the polygraph chart when a person reacted to a question. It would be a simple matter to simply breathe calmly and evenly when answering the relevant questions, and to memorize the breathing patterns most commonly associated with a reaction.

But how would I control the cardio tracing and the GSR tracing? How could I show an increase in blood pressure and pulse rate and an increase in the sweat activity in my hand on demand? The answer came a few weeks later when a friend of mine was in my office telling me about a car chase he and his partner were involved in the night before. He told me about chasing the suspect at speeds of well over 100 miles an hour when his partner lost control of the car and they careened off the road and into a bar ditch. He said, "The pucker factor was so high, my asshole was pinching doughnuts out of the seat." The "pucker factor" was a term used by cops and soldiers to indicate a frightening situation. After my friend left the office, I thought I may have the way to solve the problem of how to control the blood pressure and pulse rate. I hooked myself up to the polygraph instrument and tightened up my anal sphincter muscle like I was trying to stop a bowel movement. And just as I had expected the tracings on polygraph chart showed a dramatic increase in blood pressure and pulse rate. And much to my surprise, the GSR tracing mimicked the blood pressure and pulse rate rise. In other words by simply duplicating the physiological response to fear, the "pucker factor", I was able to show both a cardio and GSR reaction on the polygraph chart. I was now able to easily control every tracing on the chart at will - and the answer to the question was, yes, I can beat the polygraph.”

I would then instruct my volunteer to produce a reaction on the polygraph chart by taking five to seven very shallow breaths and tightening up the anal sphincter muscle. He would do as instructed, and there on the polygraph chart was evidence that I could do exactly what I said I could do at the beginning of my talk – I could teach anyone how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart in five minutes or less. I would tear off the polygraph chart, hold it up for the audience to see, and watch the surprised look on their faces. It was gratifying to witness their relief when they understood the polygraph was nothing but a big con. They were no longer afraid because they knew how to protect themselves from being branded as a liar on their next polygraph test.

For the next two or three years, I continued to appear on quite a few television and radio talk shows to demonstrate the sting technique, and debate polygraph operators - when they could find someone brave or stupid enough to debate me. I was also getting quite a bit of national attention on nationally syndicated radio talk shows. Every time the polygraph was in the news or used in some controversial case, I was called in to give my opinion.

I also continued with my seminars and started emphasizing the need for federal legislation to curb or eliminate the use of the polygraph in the private sector. I was beginning to move to the second prong of my attack against the polygraph industry – legislation. I was told by various union and ACLU officials that bills to outlaw the polygraph had been introduced in Congress every year since 1972, but they had always died in committee. But they now all agreed that I could really make a difference, they had high hopes that finally a bill could be passed into law because I was the one thing that had been missing. For the first time in history, they could produce an expert polygraph examiner to testify in support of legislation against the use of the polygraph. I would be the first licensed polygraph examiner to ever "blow the whistle", and actually tell the truth about the so-called "lie detector". I could testify as to the atrocities I had committed, and I could tell about the first-hand knowledge I had about this terrible industry.

I also began increasing my correspondence to senators and representatives, as well as representatives of the various unions. I told them I had started to build some grassroots support for legislation to protect people, particularly in private industry, from the intrusion and abuse of polygraph examinations as a condition of employment. I offered my services as an expert witness in case they needed a polygraph expert who would be willing to tell the truth about polygraph abuse. And, as always, I would report on my activities – keeping them up to date about what I was doing in my crusade. I would tell them about the seminars I conducted, and about the radio and television interviews I had participated in. I would often relate to them stories I had heard from people who had been terribly abused by the polygraph industry in hopes that this would encourage them to introduce legislation that would afford some protection to the millions of people who were victimized by this industry.

Chapter 5 – MY FIRST BIG BREAK

As I had for several years, I continued my letter writing campaign to the three major television networks. I frequently wrote to CBS 60 MINUTES, and CBS NIGHTWATCH. I was a big fan of Charlie Rose, host of CBS NIGHTWATCH, and I appealed to him personally on behalf of polygraph victims to help me in my fight against the abuses perpetrated by the polygraph industry. I told him some of the stories I had heard about how people were harmed by the polygraph industry, how they were called liars and thieves and denied employment simply because they had a nervous reaction on the wrong question. I enclosed a copy of my manual, and a VHS tape of a few local TV news programs I had appeared on. I asked him to allow me to appear on one small segment of his show to make my case against the polygraph industry. I told him there was a great deal of interest in the Congress in proposing legislation that would outlaw the use of the polygraph in private industry, and I explained to him how helpful it would be to allow me to demonstrate my "STING TECHNIQUE" to his audience. I tried to close the sale by telling him that, in all probability, well over two thirds of his television audience was regularly subjected to polygraph examination.

Finally, in about 1984, I got a response to my incessant letter writing campaign. I was invited to appear as a guest on CBS NIGHTWATCH. This would be my very first opportunity to appear on national television program, and I was very excited at the prospect. CBS NIGHTWATCH was produced in a studio in Washington DC, and was one of the first late-night television newsmagazine/talk show type programs. It was a popular with a very large audience of loyal viewers. I watched it at every opportunity. Charlie Rose was the host and the program dealt with current events, had celebrity guests, and an occasional activist like me. This would be a great opportunity for me to demonstrate the "STING TECHNIQUE" to my first national audience, and to prove the polygraph was not valid as a “lie detector”.

CBS sent me an airline ticket and scheduled me for a segment of the program. I was ready; in fact I had been waiting for this opportunity for over four years. I had my act together. By this time I had been on hundreds of radio talk shows, had been interviewed for scores of newspaper and magazine articles, and had been on local television news shows numerous times. I was a little rough around the edges – I had long hair and a mustache – and I looked every bit the wild eyed crazy crusader. But I had the credentials, I knew what I was talking about, and I could prove the polygraph was nothing but a sick joke.

When I arrived in Washington DC, CBS had a limo waiting for me at the airport. They took me directly to the NIGHTWATCH studios where I was met by a group of people I assumed were with the program. I was immediately struck by their negative and skeptical attitude. I soon discovered that many of them were very much opposed to what I stood for and what I was doing to try to outlaw the use polygraph testing in the private sector. They questioned my motives, and even went so far as to suggest that what I was doing was unethical if not outright illegal. They asked me why I was teaching liars how to beat the lie detector.

I began to wonder why I was even invited to the show in the first place if everyone was so opposed to what I was doing. I soon discovered one possible answer to that question. I was informed that Charlie Rose was off that night, and that a CBS Supreme Court reporter by the name of Fred Graham was substituting for him. That perhaps explained some of the hostility and skepticism, and it made me even more uneasy. I think Charlie Rose was probably much more sympathetic to my cause, and because of my correspondence with him, he was much more aware of what I was trying to do and why; which is probably why I got the invitation in the first place. I did not want to blow my chance at my first national television appearance so I tried to be as diplomatic as I could. I tried not to show it, but inside I was seething with anger and disappointment. I was also very nervous, so much was riding on this and it seemed like the deck was stacked against me already. It looked like I was being set up to fail.

I know how corny and sappy this must sound, but I really felt a responsibility to the victims of polygraph industry. Over the past four years I had heard their stories and felt their pain. I promised them, over and over, at every seminar, and on every radio talk show, that I would do my best to stop the abuse caused by the polygraph industry. I knew the abuse was real, because I had perpetrated some of it myself. I vowed I would do whatever was necessary to outlaw the use of the polygraph and that I would not quit until a law was passed that would protect them. I could certainly withstand a little hostility and antagonism; I had faced that often enough already. So I got control of my anger, put on my happy face, smiled, and told them I would be happy to prove the polygraph was not a "lie detector". I told them I would demonstrate my “STING TECHNIQUE” at that very moment if anyone would like to volunteer. I had often said in my letters to Charlie Rose that I could train anyone how to control every tracing on the chart in five minutes or less and that if I could do that, it was proof that the polygraph was not valid or reliable as a “lie detector”. I asked them to pick someone to be my subject, and watch me do my thing.

They looked at each other as though they were trying to figure out what to do with me. While they were conferring among themselves, I looked around the studio. It was a small set with a table and three chairs surrounded by metal poles and cables with lights attached to them. There were three or four cameras and several television monitors. The activity on the set was almost chaotic, as the crews hurriedly began preparing for the broadcast. I also noticed two men in suits standing off the side in the shadows. My cop’s eyes were immediately drawn to the bulges beneath their suit coats. It was obvious they were armed; and were some sort of law enforcement officers – probably the FBI.

By now I was accustomed to being shadowed by FBI agents. Since the first day I left the Police Department and called my news conference announcing my crusade against the use of the polygraph, I had seen them watching me. They made no secret of the fact I was under surveillance, and after awhile I got used to seeing them around. I once asked an attorney to attempt to get a copy of my FBI file. He made some inquiries and found that they would make my file available, but that I would have to pay ten cents a page after the first hundred pages. The attorney asked how many pages were in my file and the FBI told him it would be easier for them to count the number of boxes; they laughingly told him that since there were literally thousands of pages contained in the dozens of boxes, they might consider selling it by the pound.

I once asked a couple of them for a ride when I was caught in the rain after one of my seminars in Houston. I saw them setting in their car – with government plates clearly visible – so I went up to them and asked if they could give me a lift to my car which was parked about a block away. They just laughed and drove off. The FBI agents never caused me any trouble; as a matter of fact one of them once told me that I was somewhat of a folk hero in some segments of law enforcement. He told me, “Everyone Captain or above wants to hang you, but everyone Sergeant or below will hide you out. And there are a lot more street cops and agents than there are commanders and management types.” Then, as now, just about everyone in law enforcement had to take a polygraph test to get the job and often to keep the job when Internal Affairs investigated them, so many of them had an ambivalent attitude towards me and what I was doing.

Over time, the surveillance tapered off and I begin to see less and less of my friends in the FBI. But, I realized that the more attention I got, the more aggressive the government would be in opposing what I was doing. After all, I was threatening to destroy one of their favorite interrogation/intimidation tools – and now that I was getting national attention, their power was being threatened like never before. It was obvious that the presence of the FBI agents was probably one of the reasons most of the people were hostile, and unsure as to how deal with me. It was apparent to me that this was just an attempt to intimidate and confuse me. After all, President Reagan had just signed a presidential directive that greatly expanded the use of the polygraph in the government. And I'm sure they were not wild about the idea of me going on national television and teaching people how to beat the test. The people, some of which I suspected were actually government polygraph operators, were all in a group discussing how to deal with me. It was probably the first time any of the staff from CBS had seen FBI agents in the studio, especially ones who were so openly hostile to their guest, and I’m sure they were somewhat intimidated. I am also certain that the “staff” had been infiltrated by government polygraph operators. The studio was in Washington DC and there were literally hundreds of polygraph operators in the area. One thing was certain; something had put a wet blanket on their enthusiasm to continue with my part of the program.

After a while, the group of people came out of their little huddle and approached me with my first test subject in tow. He was a young man in his early twenties and he was apparently very nervous. I tried to put him at ease; I smiled and told him I was going to make him a star. One of the producers led us to a small room off to the side of the studio where there was a desk and couple of chairs. I explained to the volunteer what I was going to do and that basically all he had to do was to breathe in a shallow breathing pattern and tighten up his anal sphincter muscle like he was trying to stop a bowel movement. I asked him if he could follow those simple directions and do it on the count of three. He told me thought he could, so I hooked him up to the polygraph, put the pneumograph tubes around his chest and stomach, put the cardio on his left arm, and attached the GSR electrodes to his fingers. I then turned on the polygraph and told him to tighten up his anal sphincter muscle. After a couple of tries, he got the correct tension, and produced a perfect cardio rise. I saw the same reaction on his face that I had seen countless times before. Along with the unspoken question: Was it really this easy to control the polygraph? I then showed him how to produce a breathing reaction by just taking five to seven very short shallow breaths. After about five minutes, I opened the door and motioned to the group to come in and look at the results. I pointed out to them that less than five minutes had elapsed since we entered the room, and this person was already an expert on how to beat a polygraph test. I showed them the polygraph chart, pointing out the reaction that I had trained the volunteer to produce, and told them that was what I intended to do on their program.

They were obviously impressed by my demonstration; one of them even said it would be a very compelling visual effect for television. But I could see that most of them were still very hostile and skeptical – probably in large part because some of them were government plants, and because the FBI was still lurking in the shadows and glaring at us with malevolent looks on their faces. The “production staff” told me that was all they needed me to do right now, that the limo would take me to the hotel they had booked for me, and that I would be picked up at 9:00 AM. The show would be taped the following day. I started packing up my polygraph, which was in itself quite a task. It was not the sleek computerized polygraph instrument that I use today; it was the newest analog machine, but it was not much different than the ones which had been used for the past fifty years. The pens were hollow metal tubes that drew ink from their own separate plastic containers. So in order to pack it up you had to drain the ink from the pens, and clean them thoroughly. It was a messy, time consuming job. And no sooner had I finished than a woman came to me and said there was a problem with the volunteer I had just finished training. She told me there was some sort of a problem with him going on camera – something to do with the union.

I knew this was probably bullshit, but what was I going to do? She said I would have to train someone else. I nodded, opened up my polygraph instrument, and began getting it set up to train another volunteer. Over the course of the next two or three hours I trained at least six more people – and it took less than five minutes each to train them. By now, I was providing entertainment for the entire group – people were crowding around watching me, and everyone wanted to see if they could “beat the box”. I tried to be a good sport and keep everyone happy, so I kept it up until they finally tired of their game. I had been at it non-stop for about seven hours when, at last, the woman told me they were all satisfied that I could do what I said I could do and we could call it a day. She did seem more enthusiastic now, and I could tell all my work had produced some results since much of the hostility had disappeared, and they were now more curious and amazed than antagonistic and skeptical. I also noticed the FBI agents were no longer observing the proceedings, which probably accounted for the more congenial atmosphere. The woman told me again that the limo would pick me up at 9:00 AM and we would tape my segment the next day.

I was greatly relieved – it had been a long, tiring and very frustrating day and I needed some rest. I got to the hotel at around 7:00 PM, got a bite to eat at the hotel restaurant, went to my room and unpacked my one good suit. If you were to look closely at the television programs I appeared on in the early and mid-eighties, you would see that my wardrobe never changed. My hair would be long and I would have a mustache on some shows, my hair would be short with no mustache on others, but I would always be wearing that same brown suit. Bear in mind I was supporting my crusade with what little money I could earn working odd jobs and I had no room in my budget for an expensive collection of suits. So I purchased a nice brown suit at Goodwill and wore it every time I needed to look my best. So I unpacked my Goodwill suit, and ironed out the wrinkles. I ironed my one good dress shirt, smoothed out my tie and laid them all out so I would be ready to go first thing in the morning. I began to get ready for bed when the phone rang. It was the woman from the group I had been meeting with all day. She had obviously been drinking, and in the background I could hear the noises of a crowded bar. She told me that again there was a problem with the people I had trained. She further informed me that they had a volunteer who would be perfect – he was a bartender that they had met that evening. She actually giggled when she said he would look great on TV. She told me she would send the limo to pick me up at the hotel if I could come to the studio and train just one more person. I was tired, disgusted, and not at all interested in going back to train another person, but I had already decided I would do whatever it took to make my case on this my first opportunity at a national audience. So I simply told her I would meet the limo in ten minutes.

When I got back to the studio it was about 10:00 PM, and the group of people that I had assumed were sent to intimidate and frustrate me had grown considerably. There were at least a dozen people in the studio, and most of them had obviously been drinking. Looking back on it now, I’m sure my suspicions at the time were correct; most of them were probably not even associated with CBS. I have since come to believe they were from one of the government agencies, probably DOD and FBI, and that they would like nothing better than to see me make a fool of myself on national television. The woman, who appeared to be in charge, proudly produced her latest volunteer. I noticed that he was not as drunk as the rest of them appeared to be so I hoped we could get this over with quickly. I set up my polygraph instrument again, hooked him up, and went through the little training exercise. And, I was able to teach one more person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart in less than five minutes. I tore off the chart and held it up to the group – they actually started applauding me. I asked them if I had finally convinced even the most skeptical among them that the polygraph was not a "lie detector". They all reluctantly agreed that I had, and that tomorrow's program would indeed be a historic occasion.

When I arrived at the studio the next day, the atmosphere was again dark and foreboding – probably because two different armed men were on hand with even more sinister looking expressions than the ones from the day before. And, today there was a new producer; I had not met her the day before. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that she had a much more professional attitude than had been demonstrated by the other group. She told me she had yet another person for me to train. Unlike the others, this “volunteer” was dressed in a very nice business suit, and was openly hostile from the very beginning. The producer told me he was an attorney from the US Department of Justice. I was certain that this was not a coincidence - in fact, it confirmed my suspicions that this was another attempt by the government to intimidate me and sabotage what I was trying to do. I was told to use the actual set that was set up for the broadcast for my training. The set was even more hectic, noisy, and hot than it had been the day before. There were people running all around, orders being shouted; in short, it was nothing but mayhem. But I did as I was told, and began getting my polygraph instrument ready. My volunteer came to the set and took a seat and sat there studying me with a prosecutorial air of superiority. As I was working to set up my polygraph I began to try to make small talk with him. I found out his name was Jonathan and over the course of a short conversation I discovered that he was an aspiring "thespian", and that he was involved in the local amateur theater group.

Jonathan was very critical of me and what I was doing. He asked me if I had considered the damage that I was doing by teaching people how to beat the "lie detector". He told me that in his opinion there were very significant national security issues at stake as well. I tried to appeal to his logic as an attorney by telling him that, leaving aside for a moment that there was a great deal of evidence proving that there was no such thing as a "lying reaction", and thus no such thing as a “lie detector”, and that if I had time I could prove that. I asked him, “If I can teach you how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, would that constitute prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a lie detector?" He grudgingly admitted that it probably would. I then told him I was going to teach him how to do just that in five minutes or less. I hooked him up to the polygraph, and instructed him to do what I had told all the others to do. I explained to him that when the program started that I would count to three and that on the count of three he would tighten his anal sphincter muscle, and take five shallow breaths. I told him we should run through it once to practice; he did as he was told and produced a perfect "reaction" on the cardio, pneumograph, and GSR tracings. He was both surprised and chagrined at how easy it was to do this. I told him that was all he needed to do when the cameras were rolling; on the count of three, he was to produce that same reaction. He sullenly nodded in agreement.

A few minutes before airtime, Fred Graham made his appearance on the set. I was introduced to him, and while he had very little to say, it was obvious by his attitude and curt demeanor that he wanted nothing to do with me or my crusade; and that if it was up to him my segment and my demonstration would be canceled. He muttered something like, "I wonder what the Justice Department thinks about this." He then turned and walked quickly away, yelling something about the makeup girl. My first opinion of him was that he was a pompous ass.

When Graham returned to the set just prior to going on the air, he did nothing to change my very negative opinion of him. Acting every bit the arrogant Oxford educated lawyer who was not the least bit happy to help a long haired, wild-eyed crusader attack the validity of such a valuable tool as the polygraph, he tried to put me in my place immediately. The first thing he did was to look at me bending over my polygraph, and with an imperious tone, he angrily asked one of the producers; "Is he going to have his ass in my face the whole time"? He then looked past me and began a conversation with Jonathan as though he were the guest instead of me. He asked him what the Justice Department thought about the polygraph and what Jonathan’s opinion was about my activities. Jonathan told him he did not agree with me and that he thought what I was doing was dangerous to national security and a hindrance to criminal investigations. Graham then asked one of the crew to put a microphone on Jonathan. He told the producer, "I think the audience would be interested in hearing the justice department’s view on this." The producer said we were less than a minute away from airtime, and I knew it was too late for them to back out now. I was tired, frustrated, and very angry. It was time to get aggressive if I was going to have a chance to make my case against the polygraph, so I took advantage of the moment of indecision and lack of time, and I stood up between Graham and Jonathan. "No”, I said loudly and angrily, “do not put a microphone on Jonathan, he is not the one being interviewed, I am!" I then looked Graham right in the eyes with as ferocious a glare as I had ever leveled at any of the thousands of hardened criminals I had interrogated as a police Detective Sergeant, and with a voice seething with anger, I said, "Fred I can prove everything I’m going to say here today, and you can feel free to ask me any questions you like, you can challenge me on any statement I make, and point out anything I'm saying that you feel is wrong or out of line in any way, but I am the guest here and you will interview me and only me." By the time I finished, I was shouting, and the shocked look on Fred’s face was almost amusing; it was as though his mind could not comprehend how I could change from being Mr. Nice Guy to this wild eyed, crazy ex-cop so quickly. He got a glimpse into the eyes of what was probably the meanest SOB he had ever encountered in his genteel profession, and it had obviously stunned and frightened him. Taken aback, he turned to the producer and asked in a subdued almost pleading voice, "Is he going to be an unguided missile up here? Are there going to be any controls placed on what he can say?" All of his arrogance was gone, and I knew I was now the one in charge. The producer just shrugged her shoulders, turned to the people in the booth behind her and simply said, "thirty seconds”. I looked at the clock on the wall and when it got down to about fifteen seconds, Jonathan leaned over to me and whispered in my ear, "What if I just sit here and do nothing when you tell me to show a reaction?" Oh no I thought, I'm not out of the woods yet, I could see everything falling apart right in front of my eyes before it even started. They were all doing everything they could to stop me or make me look foolish – I was more furious with him than I had been with Graham. I got up out of my chair, and said loud enough for everyone to hear me, “Looks like I need to adjust that cardio cuff right quick.” I then leaned over in front of Jonathan, and put my face right in front of his with my nose almost touching his and I whispered so that only he could hear me; and as vehemently as I could, I said, "Jonathan if you don't do what I trained you to do when I tell you to do it, I will beat your face into a bloody pulp right here on national television; and if you don’t believe I’ll do it, you just try me!" Jonathan's face was ashen; he too had seen the monster behind the mask, up close and personal, and it scared the hell out of him too because he knew deep down that I would do exactly what I said I would do. I knew he took great pride in his appearance, especially since he was a "thespian", and I could actually see him recoil at the thought of his face being disfigured. I set back down, and tried to compose myself enough to get ready for my interview and demonstration. I hoped my threats of violence would be enough to cause a reaction whether Jonathan deliberately produced it or not. And I hoped that when the time came, he would react because of his fear if not because of his cooperation. I didn't care which one it was, so long as it worked. Suddenly, it was dead quiet on the set, and the producer began her countdown, "Ten, nine, eight, seven, six…” So began my first national television interview. When you watch the video of that segment, you would never guess there was so much drama that preceded it.

During the broadcast, Fred Graham was very professional and courteous when he interviewed me, Jonathan produced a perfect reaction right on cue; even Fred Graham was impressed when Jonathan showed how easy it was to manipulate a reaction on the polygraph at will. He looked at the polygraph chart as Jonathan was manipulating the reaction, and simply said, “Oh, that’s very telling isn’t it?” I made my point and even Graham had to admit it. I proved that I could teach anyone to control every tracing on the polygraph at will with just a small amount of training, and by that simple demonstration I proved that the polygraph was not a “lie detector”. And I did it the very first time on national television!

After we were finished, the producers congratulated us all on a wonderful performance. Fred and Jonathan immediately left the set and did not even so much as glance in my direction. I smiled to myself, and started to pack up my polygraph instrument. I was satisfied that I had made my point, and I didn't care whose feelings got hurt. They had tried to intimidate the wrong guy; better men had tried with no success. I had five years of hard labor tied up in this crusade, and I was not going to let them ruin my first appearance on national television by making me look like a fool. Besides that, I considered myself a spokesman, perhaps even a champion of the millions of victims of the polygraph, and I did not want to let them down. As I was about to leave the studio, the producer approached me with a warm smile on her face, she shook my hand and said, "I'll give you this, you certainly know how to handle yourself; and you look great on TV". You can watch this video by going to the MEDIA page of my website www.polygraph.com.

Chapter 6 – “NOW YOU’RE MESSIN’ WITH A SON OF A BITCH”

When I returned home to Oklahoma City, I continued my seminars, and my letter writing and phone call routine. But this time, I had an addition to my presentation package. My girlfriend, the nurse, had recorded the CBS NIGHTWATCH segment on her VHS recorder, and I had some copies made to send along with my letters. I would also show the tape of me teaching Jonathan how to beat the polygraph at my seminars. It is amazing how much credibility a national television show affords. I was even asked to speak as a guest lecturer at a few colleges in the criminology classes, where I made a point of emphasizing that Jonathan, the person I taught to beat the polygraph, was an attorney with the US Department of Justice. I figured that since they sent a US Attorney into the studio to try to intimidate me and make me look like a fool on national television, it was only fair for me to make light of the fact that I had turned the tables on them. I delighted in repeatedly pointing out that a US Attorney had assisted me in teaching people how to beat the "lie detector".

The national exposure also increased the number of invitations I received to be a guest on local television and on more national radio talk shows. My crusade against the polygraph was gaining more momentum, and more attention; both good and bad! I also began to notice that there were a few more polygraph examiners attending my seminars, they were easy to spot; they always came late, stood in the back of the room, and were conspicuous because they were obviously much different than the clerks and route salesman who normally attended, and they always had an angry look on their faces. They would inevitably leave early, no doubt in an attempt to avoid any conversation with people they had abused in their polygraph examinations. But they always made a point of making sure they got a least one copy of my manual before they left; sometimes they would take three or four copies. I never recognized them publicly and I never called them out to debate, but I made no secret of the fact that I was determined to put them out of business, and I could tell by the look on their faces that they were beginning to worry that I would be successful in doing just that.

My friends at the ACLU, the union officials, and many of the people who attended my seminars often cautioned me to be careful; they told me that what I was doing was very dangerous. Many came right out and said they were afraid someone was going to "take me out". I was aware of the danger, and had been threatened on numerous occasions by many different polygraph examiners, but I felt like that went with the territory. Besides I was no stranger to danger, I had worked for two years as a patrol officer before becoming a Detective Sergeant and polygraph examiner. My district was one of the toughest in Oklahoma City and I always rode by myself. I had more fights in those two years than I can remember.

Around that time I became acquainted with a private investigator by the name of Jim Humphreys. Jim Humphreys was quite a character, he claimed that the television series Magnum PI was based on his life, and I almost believed that was true. He looked remarkably like Tom Selleck; even down to the mustache. When I met Jim, he was working on a case in Dallas, Texas involving the polygraph. He was the lead investigator in the Lenell Geter case. The Geter case was the subject of a CBS 60 MINUTES report, and Jim did all the behind-the-scenes investigation for that program which ultimately resulted in Geter being freed from jail. I was very impressed with Humphreys, and his zeal for justice. He told me that Lenell Geter had been tried and convicted for an armed robbery that he did not commit - even after he had passed two polygraph examinations. He told me he agreed with me that the polygraph was nothing but a sick joke, and offered to help me in my crusade against the polygraph any way he could because he was very enthusiastic about what I was trying to do. I was happy to be involved with him, and I wanted to pick his brain about his experiences with CBS 60 MINUTES. Although Jim never appeared on the show, they relied heavily on his investigation. He gave me one bit of information I filed away for future reference – although CBS 60 MINUTES used the information he provided for their investigation, they claimed all the credit for investigating it themselves. It was just another instance of how much you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit.

My little construction job with my friend Tom was about finished, and my girlfriend, the nurse, was about to leave to enroll in graduate school. So I had to come up with a new way of making a living, and I had to move back into Moby Dick. This was quite a setback since I had enjoyed living with my nurse, and particularly enjoyed having her apartment to headquarter out of. But all good things come to an end, and I had to move on. It was about time, things were getting pretty hot in Oklahoma City and I had heard rumors that the FBI and many of the local polygraph examiners were scheming on how to put a stop to me, or at the very least, my “outrageous” crusade.

So I loaded my meager possessions into Moby Dick, my portable manual typewriter, my brown Goodwill suit, and, of course, my polygraph, and hit the road to Dallas, Texas. For the next couple of years I would divide my time between Dallas and Houston. Some of the time I would live in Moby Dick, sometimes I could afford an apartment, and often I would be taken in by one or another kindhearted ladies who had sympathy for me and my crusade. I worked various jobs from construction to truck driving, but always had as my priority my crusade against the polygraph. I continued my letter writing campaign, often crouched over my portable typewriter in the back of Moby Dick typing letters to congressmen, senators, and the media. I was particularly concentrating on CBS 60 MINUTES. That, to me, was the gold ring – the epitome – because it was the preeminent and most viewed television newsmagazine in the world.

Part of that time, I teamed up with Jim Humphreys for some very memorable adventures. Jim was indeed a charismatic figure, much like Magnum PI. He even drove a fancy car like Magnum, only Jim’s was a blue 1966 Jaguar XKE convertible. I had a blast riding around in his fancy sports car with the top down. Jim always seemed to have money, dressed well, and of course drove that fancy Jaguar, so I assumed he was a very successful private investigator. Jim was a very creative person, especially when it came to promoting himself or a project he was associated with. He came up with the idea of forming a partnership and naming our company GRAPH BUSTERS. He even had shirts made with a picture of the polygraph on the front with a circle around it and a line through it, indicating no polygraphs allowed. You can read an article about this in the appendix of this book. Jim had quite a few contacts in the media because of his work on the Geter case and his involvement with CBS 60 MINUTES, so he was able to get us on a few local television news shows. We would go on the program wearing our GRAPHBUSTER T shirts, and I would demonstrate the STING TECHNIQUE using Jim as my subject.

We did some crazy things on those occasions when we got together to stir up some publicity for my crusade. Humphreys’ theory was that there was no such thing as bad publicity and he hatched some crazy and hilarious activities for us to be involved in. One that I thought was particularly funny almost got us arrested – obviously many other people didn't share my opinion as to its entertainment value. It was 1984, and President Reagan had just signed a presidential directive requiring polygraph examinations on thousands of government employees because he was enraged at a leak of information that was embarrassing to him. It was also an election year and Reagan was running for reelection so there were quite a few fundraising events in the Dallas area. We learned that a large fundraising event was to be held at one of the more prestigious hotels in Dallas. We thought it would be a good opportunity for us to get some publicity for GRAPHBUSTERS, and also make a point about the absurdity of President Reagan's order to expand the use of the polygraph. We went to a costume store and purchased two Reagan masks. These were very expensive rubber masks which covered our entire head and were very realistic depictions of an angry almost insane looking Ronald Reagan. We then went to the hotel and found the room where the fundraiser was to be held. We got there early before the crowd started to arrive, and I set up the polygraph on a table near the podium in the front of the room. Jim had tipped off some reporters that he knew and they were already there with their cameras. We were dressed in suits and ties, and were both wearing our Ronald Reagan masks. Jim pulled an armchair up next to the table and I hooked him up to the polygraph. As the people began to arrive for the fundraiser, they were amazed to see Ronald Reagan giving himself a polygraph examination. Some were amused; some were surprised, but most were angry and indignant. We were soon escorted out of the room by the security staff. I don't think we made much of an impact with that little stunt, but we did get a little publicity, it was certainly a lot of fun.

Aside from a couple of television appearances and our little Ronald Reagan polygraph examination skit, I didn't do much else with Jim. His idea was to make a business out of my crusade; he wanted to sell copies of my manual to the people who attended my seminars. I was opposed to this, and I explained to him that the free copies of my manual were what enticed many people to attend my seminars. And as a result, we didn't do much else with the GRAPHBUSTERS idea after that. Besides, Jim was a little too wild for my taste, and he loved his coke, which made me very nervous being around him. I knew that it was just too dangerous to continue to be involved with him. I could not take the chance that he would be busted while driving the Jag ninety miles an hour around Dallas, with his pockets full of cocaine and me in the passenger seat. That would be just the thing the FBI could use to stop my crusade.

I knew that the primary reason I had survived all these years crusading against the polygraph with my credibility intact was because I had an exemplary record, and I avoided stepping too far out of line. Anyone who checked my background, (and many people had), would find that it was spotless and above reproach. I was the son of a Methodist minister, had served honorably in the United States Air Force, where I worked in the White House situation room and served as communications advisor to Presidents Johnson and Nixon. I had a top-secret POTUS EYES ONLY security clearance, and I was personal friends with Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. After my discharge from the Air Force, I joined the Oklahoma City Police Department where I was quickly promoted to the rank of Detective Sergeant and I served the Oklahoma City Police Department with distinction for ten years. I had numerous letters of commendation and not one black mark anywhere on my record. I also was an honors graduate from Oklahoma City University with a degree in criminology. During my time on the Oklahoma City Police Department I worked closely with both the FBI and the Secret Service on cases where they needed polygraph examinations conducted. In short, when anyone checked me out, the more they dug into my background the more impressed they were. While I acted like half crazy renegade ex-cop, and looked like a long-haired rebel; on paper I was impeccable – and I was not going to do anything to jeopardize that.

I had enough trouble on my hands with all the enemies I was making in the polygraph industry, and an incident that occurred after one of my seminars, pointed out very dramatically the dangers inherent in trying to destroy a multibillion-dollar industry.

One of the local unions had arranged for me to have access to a large conference room in a Dallas hotel to conduct one more seminar before I left the Dallas area. The union official used his contacts in the media to get me a five minute spot on an AM radio talk show to promote the seminar. I explained what I would be doing at the seminar, that I would be teaching people how to pass a polygraph test and giving out free copies of my manual, HOW TO STING IN THE POLYGRAPH. I gave the address of the hotel and invited anyone who was interested to attend; particularly those who were required to take a polygraph test. As a result, we had a very good attendance, and I noticed that the polygraph community was well represented in the audience – once again sitting or standing in the back of the room and glaring at me. As usual, they left early with their arms full of the free copies of my manual. After the seminar, I began packing up my polygraph equipment, and gathering up any extra copies of the manual which had not been taken. The room was beginning to empty out and I picked up my polygraph and my briefcase and went out the back door of the hotel. I had parked in the back close to door so it would be easier to haul my equipment out to Moby Dick.

As I opened the back door of the hotel, I was immediately confronted by a man holding a revolver. He appeared to be in his 50s, about 5’10”, 180 pounds, with a balding head, a pockmarked face with a large nose, a small mangy mustache, and almost no chin. I remember thinking his face looked more like a rat than a human. He stepped toward me and literally stuck a pistol in my belly. His rancid breath reeked of alcohol and his eyes were wide and wild looking. I had had guns pointed at me a few times before when I was a police officer, but this was the first time I had been caught off guard by such an up close and personal threat. I had my polygraph instrument in one hand and large briefcase full of books and papers in the other. I looked at the little man front of me holding his gun with a twisted expression of hate on his face, and I was immediately filled with rage that this little puke would dare to threaten my life.

I was glad to see he was holding a small revolver instead of an automatic because I had been trained in recruit school to disarm a man holding a revolver. It was a very simple maneuver and it was also very effective, but I knew I only had one chance, and I had to do it right; I hoped he was drunk enough to give me an edge. Right then, he gave me just the opportunity I needed; he hesitated long enough to make one threatening statement. "This is the last one of these little programs you're ever going to have you son of a bitch”, he snarled with a drunken slur, “because I'm going to put an end to your bullshit right now!" My heart starting pounding as the adrenaline shot through my system. I am not a brave man, but I have somehow always managed to do what I had to do in order to survive a dangerous, life-threatening situation.

I dropped my polygraph and my briefcase both at the same time. The polygraph has a metal case and it is very heavy - it hit the ground hard with a loud crashing sound, (and it still has a dent in the corner of the case that is a constant reminder of that night). The noise diverted his attention just enough to give me time to grab the revolver. I had been trained to grasp the cylinder of the revolver, clamp down tightly, twisting to the right to point the barrel of the gun to the side away from me. In other words if the person is right-handed, you simply grasp the cylinder of the revolver and turn it to your right with a quick twisting motion of your wrist – you then pull hard and it comes right out the attackers hand. Holding the cylinder makes it impossible to fire the gun, because it is impossible to pull the trigger if the cylinder will not move, and quickly twisting it to the right while pulling hard literally jerks the weapon out of the gunman's hand. I had performed this maneuver countless times during my training in police recruit school but this was the only time I ever had to use it in a real life situation – and to my great relief, (and surprise), it worked perfectly. It helped that he was carrying a Colt snub nose .38, which was small enough for me to hold tightly in one hand. In a split second I had the gun in my hand and he had a panicked look on his face.

My heart was pounding, I was shaking from the effects of the adrenaline, and there was an intense fire of rage burning in me. I still had the revolver, holding it by the cylinder; and before my attacker could react I smashed the revolver into the side of his head just above his left eye. Blood began pouring all down his face and he took off running towards a brand-new Ford pickup parked about ten feet away. Just as he got to the door and tried to open it, I was behind him and kicked it shut. I chased him around his own pickup truck about three times. I screamed at him, "I'm going to shove this gun up your ass, and you better hope I don't pull the trigger when I do!" That seemed to give the rat faced little man even more motivation to escape, and he bolted from the truck, running for his life across the parking lot. I yelled at him, "You're not so tough without your gun are you asshole?" I opened the cylinder, ejected the cartridges, and tossed the revolver up on the roof of the hotel entrance. I could see him trying to hide in the bushes on the far edge of the parking lot. "Okay", I yelled at him again, "Neither one of us has a gun now, so come on out and we’ll settle this right now. If you still think you’re man enough to take me on, now’s your chance!" He tried to make himself disappear behind one of the largest bushes so I decided to vent my rage on his brand-new pickup truck. I walked around it kicking giant dents in every square inch of both sides; I then climbed up on the hood and begin jumping up and down. I kicked in the windshield, jumped up on the top of the cab and started jumping up and down again, literally caving in the top. I destroyed the outside of his pickup truck; and he never so much as took one step towards me. After a few minutes, I calmed down some and looked around to make sure we were alone in the parking lot. I went over and retrieved my polygraph and briefcase, got in Moby Dick, and before I drove off I gave the little weasel one last thought to ponder. I yelled, "If you guys are going to stop me, you had better find someone tougher and crazier than I am – and none of you assholes are even close."

As I drove away from the hotel, I wondered how many more desperate little men were lurking out there, terrified at the prospect of losing a very lucrative business, and willing to do just about anything including killing me, to protect it. I imagined there were hundreds of them, and the thought was chilling. More than one person had told me that what I was doing was dangerous, and that experience certainly proved that to be true.

I never mentioned a word about the encounter, as a matter of fact I didn't tell anyone about that incident until many years later, and I doubted if rat face had ever told anyone either. I drove around for awhile, and finally found a spot in a park near Lake Dallas, where I could park in the trees out of sight. I situated Moby Dick where I could open up the big double doors in the back, and have a view of the lake. I rolled down the front windows, got my mosquito netting placed over the top of the truck and down both sides covering the windows and the back doors. I anchored the netting with some bricks I carried for that purpose. I climbed back in to my little living area in the back, and folded down my bunk. I took off my brown Goodwill suit and noticed that I had not damaged it at all in my fight with rat face. I changed into some cutoffs, kicked back on my bunk, and drank a bottle of Budweiser trying to come down from excitement of the fight and the effects of the adrenalin. Sometimes I really liked living in the back of Moby Dick, because I could easily disappear into the woods, or in the middle of a large construction site, where I could relax, drink some beer, and be anonymous. I took great comfort in knowing that I could go away and hide and that no one on earth knew where I was or what I was doing.

I turned on my little battery powered transistor radio/cassette player and put in a tape by Nazareth. “Hair of the Dog”, the first song on the album with the same name, was one that I had adopted as my theme song at the beginning of my crusade in 1979. I could relate to the lyrics in the chorus that was often repeated; "Now you're messin’ with a son of a bitch". As I was fishing in my cooler for another cold Budweiser, I smiled to myself and thought rat face would certainly agree that he was doing just that about an hour ago. I took another sip of beer, looked out across the lake, watched the waves dancing in the moonlight, and considered what I was going to do next. I knew one thing for sure; it was time to leave Dallas for awhile.

Chapter 7 – TAKING IT TO THE STREETS

I went back to Houston, Texas and got a job working as a carpenter on a large apartment complex project. The project manager allowed me to camp out in Moby Dick and hook up to one of the electrical power poles on the site in return for being a sort of night watchman. I had free electricity, running water, and my choice of the numerous porta-potties scattered throughout the construction site. Not exactly all the comforts of home, but it would have to do until I could get another kind lady to provide me with more suitable arrangements.

There were a few convenience stores located within walking distance and I got acquainted with many of the employees. I told them about my crusade and that I was trying to get a law passed that would protect them from the polygraph. I told them that my goal was to get a federal law that would basically outlaw its use as a condition of employment – in other words they would not have to take a polygraph test to get a job, or to keep a job. They were all very enthusiastic about my crusade and I told them to arrange for a suitable meeting place, like a church basement, union hall, or something large enough to accommodate a hundred or so people. I told them that if they could get such a place and invite all the people they knew who had to take a polygraph test that I would bring my polygraph instrument and teach them all about how it worked and how to make sure they always passed. After the incident with rat face, I decided the more prudent course of action would be to keep the seminars low key in the future.

This was the early part of 1985, and back then every convenience store had anywhere from three to six public telephone booths lined up in front of the store. As was usually the case, one of the public phones also rang in the store and the clerk would use it for store business as well as personal use. I made friends with all the clerks at the closest convenience store, and got the number of the public phone that was accessible in the store. I asked them to take any messages from people who would call that number asking for me. They all agreed, and now I was set up continue my crusade. I continued writing my letters and I would use the phone booth at the convenience store to place and receive my phone calls. After work I would call some of the producers of the radio shows I had been on in the past, let them know how they could contact me, and gave them the phone number at the convenience store. I explained my situation and told them that they could leave a message for me in the event they needed me to be a guest. During those few months I was a guest on over twenty talk shows, and on all of them I was speaking from a public phone booth. This was far from ideal, there was always the noise of the people and the traffic to contend with, the heat and humidity, and of course the buzzing clouds of mosquitoes – but I made do because I had no other option at the time.

I always used my parents address and phone number in my correspondence, because during that time I was never at the same place for very long. My parents lived in Oklahoma City and my father, a Methodist minister, was now the director of the United Methodist Foundation for the Oklahoma Conference. I would check in with my parents regularly to see if anyone had responded to my letters. Usually the response was the same, some calls from radio producers which they had forwarded to whatever phone number I was using at the time, and sometimes there were letters from the ACLU or various unions acknowledging receipt of my correspondence and encouraging me to continue in my crusade. But sometime in June or July of 1985 I got some very exciting news. My parents had received a letter from US Congressman Martinez. He was chairman of the subcommittee on employment opportunities of the committee on education and labor in the House of Representatives for the 99th Congress, and he had invited me to testify in hearings on HR 1524, and HR 1924. These were House Bills to ban the use of the polygraphs in the workplace for the purposes of hiring and firing. My mother gave me the contact information and phone number, and I immediately called the Congressman’s office and accepted the invitation.

I had heard that there was once again some interest in Congress to pass a law that would outlaw the use of the polygraph. And it looked like something was really going to happen this time. I contacted a member of Congressman Martinez staff. She told me that HR 1524 was a bill "to prevent the denial of employment opportunities by prohibiting the use of lie detector by employers involved in or affect the interstate", and that HR 1924 was a bill "to protect the rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and to prevent unwarranted invasion of their privacy by prohibiting the use of the polygraph equipment for certain purposes". I gave her the address of the nearest convenience store, and she sent me copies of both of the Bills.

I still remember how I felt, sitting in the back of Moby Dick after a hard day’s work, sweating my ass off in the heat and humidity of a summer day in Houston, drinking a cold Budweiser and smoking a cigarette while I read the Bills. I literally laughed out loud at some of the verbiage, and I was so delighted I almost clapped my hands in glee – these Bills had some teeth in them! What follows are both bills as they were originally introduced.

99th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1524

To prevent the denial of employment opportunities by prohibiting the use of lie detectors by employers involved in or affecting interstate commerce.

Mr. Williams (for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Ford of Michigan, Mr. Kemp, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Owens, Mr. Dymally, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Tauke, Mr. Lowry of Washington, Mr. Courter, and Mr. Edwards of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

To prevent the denial of employment opportunities by prohibiting the use of lie detectors by employers involved in or

affecting interstate commerce. Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 1985

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives -

This Act may be cited as the "Polygraph Protection Act of 1985".

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to prevent the denial of employment opportunities based on the use of instrumentation designed to detect deception or verify truth of statement. This Act shall be construed to prohibit the use of all such instrumentation on employees, agents, prospective employees and prospective agents.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS ON LIE DETECTOR USE.

No employer or other person engaged in any business in or affecting interstate commerce, nor any agent or representative thereof, shall—

(1) directly or indirectly require, request, suggest, permit or cause any employee, agent, prospective employee or prospective agent to take or submit to any lie detector test or examination for any purpose whatsoever;

(2) use, accept, or refer to the results of any lie detector test or examination of any employee, agent, prospective employee or prospective agent for any purpose whatsoever; or

(3) discharge, dismiss, discipline in any manner, or deny employment or promotion, or threaten to do so, to any employee, agent, prospective employee or prospective agent who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test or examination

SEC. 4. NOTICE OF PROTECTION.

The Secretary of Labor shall prepare and have printed a notice setting forth information necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act. This notice shall be posted at all times in conspicuous places upon the premises of every employer engaged in any business in or affecting interstate commerce.

SEC. 5. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

In accordance with the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary of Labor shall issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate for carrying out this Act.

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.

The Secretary of Labor shall—make such delegations, appoint such agents and employees, and pay for such technical assistance on a fee for service basis, as he deems necessary to assist him in the performance of his functions under this Act;

(2) cooperate with regional, State, local, arid other agencies, and cooperate with and furnish technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies to aid in effectuating the purposes of this Act; and,

(3) make investigations and require the keeping of records necessary or appropriate for the administration of this Act in accordance with the powers and procedures provided in sections 9 and 11 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 209 and 211).

SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

The provisions of this Act shall be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in sections 11(b), 16, and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 211(b), 216, 217). Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this Act shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 16 and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act oH938 (29 U.S.C. 216, 217).

SEC. 8. NO APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES.

The provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to any individual who is employed by the United States Government, a State government, city, or any political subdivision of a State or city.

SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act—

(1) The term "person" means any natural person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or any employee or agent thereof.

(2) The term "lie detector" includes but is not limited to any polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other device (whether mechanical, electrical, or chemical) which is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of detecting deception or verifying the truth of statements.

(3) The term "employer" includes an employment agency.

SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment, except for section 4, which shall take effect six months from the date of enactment.

99th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1924

To protect the rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and to prevent unwarranted invasion of their privacy by prohibiting the use of polygraph equipment for certain purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 1985

Mr. McKinney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To protect the rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and to prevent unwarranted invasion of their privacy by prohibiting the use of polygraph equipment for certain purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Polygraph Control and Privacy Protection Act of 1985".

Sec. 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in any private business or other private activity in or affecting interstate commerce, or any individual acting under the authority of such person—

(1) to permit, require, or request any officer or employee employed by such person or any individual seeking employment in connection with such business or activity to take any polygraph test in connection with such officer's, employee's, or individual's services or duties or in connection with such officer's, employee's, or individual's application or consideration for employment;

(2) to deny employment to any individual, or to discharge, discipline, or deny promotion to any officer or employee employed in connection with such business or activity, or to threaten any such denial, discharge, or discipline by reason of such officer's, employee's, or individual's refusal or failure to submit to such requirement or request; or

(3) to accept or use the results of any polygraph test in connection with the services or duties of any officer or employee employed in connection with such business or activity, or in connection with any individual's application or consideration for employment in connection with such business or activity.(b) This Act shall not apply to any person who enters into a contract with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, or the Department of Defense to perform functions for such agency or department related to intelligence, counterintelligence, or national security.

Sec. 3. (a) Whoever willfully violates or willfully attempts to violate this Act shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(b) Whoever violates this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty, payable to the United States, of not more than $10,000.

Sec. 4. (a) Any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of this Act may bring a civil action on such individual's own behalf, or on behalf of such individual and others similarly situated, against the offending person in the appropriate United States district court and recover appropriate relief.

(b) With the written consent of any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of this Act, any appropriate employee organization may bring such a civil action on behalf of such individual, or may intervene in any such civil action .

Sec. 5. As used in this Act the term—

(1) "polygraph test" means any examination administered to an individual by mechanical, electrical, or chemical means to measure or otherwise examine the veracity or truthfulness of such individual; and

(2) "appropriate employee organization" means any organization (including any brotherhood, council, federation, union, or professional organization) made up in whole or in part of employees and which has as a purpose dealing with an employer concerning the conditions and terms of employment of an individual against whom there is a violation of this Act.

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I couldn't have written it any better if I had written it myself. If I could help get these bills passed into law, it would be a great success and an immense relief for millions of people in private industry.

Chapter 8 – THE CRAZY CRUSADER GOES TO WASHINGTON

I took my brown goodwill suit and my two good dress shirts to the cleaners, scrounged up enough money for a round-trip airline ticket from Houston to Washington DC, and began writing notes for what was to be my testimony in the US House of Representatives.

I was to testify on Tuesday, July 30th, 1985, and I arrived in Washington DC the night before. I got a cheap hotel room near the capital and hardly slept at all that night.

When I arrived at the hearing room, I was greeted by a staff member and directed to my place at the table. The congressmen were seated behind a desk which was located in the front of the room and elevated above those of us the floor. There were a number of witnesses, and we were all lined up and seated behind the table facing the congressmen. There were microphones on the table that were to be shared by the witnesses. I recognized some of the pro-polygraph witnesses – they were very well-dressed and surrounded by their attorneys and advisors. I was seated between a union representative whose name I don't remember and someone who I believe was from the ACLU. No one went out of their way to recognize me; most were either ignoring me or glaring at me. No one seemed to know exactly who I was or what to do with me.

Witness after witness gave their testimony and answered follow-up questions from the congressmen. As the day wore on, I began to notice the people in the chairs behind me – mostly reporters and interested observers – seemed to be almost overcome with boredom, some were even nodding off. I could understand why since most of the testimony was somewhat dry and highly technical.

The testimony I had written out to deliver now seemed entirely too inflammatory and inappropriate for such an august hearing. But I decided to stay with the script I had written and let the chips fall where they may.

What follows is taken directly from the transcript of the hearings before the subcommittee on employment opportunities of the committee on education and labor in the US House of Representatives 99th Congress first session on HR team 24 HR 1924. Hearings held in Washington DC, on July 30, 1985:

Mr. Douglas Gene Williams: My name is Douglas Gene Williams, and I plead guilty to crimes against humanity. I was a right-wing terrorist. I tortured thousands of people, documented more forced confessions than most Gestapo agents, violated countless constitutional rights, and had absolutely no regard for human dignity. I was often rewarded for my skillful use of terrorism. There are some truly grim stories behind those official letters of commendation I earned as a police detective sergeant.

I was a highly trained, well-equipped terrorist agent. My specialty was psychological trauma and my weapon was the lie detector. I am here today to try to undo some of the damage I have done by telling the truth about the lie detector.

The polygraph has been cloaked in shady scientific jargon for over 50 years. Lie detector operators claim an accuracy rate of 96 to 98 percent. It has been endorsed by such bastions of journalism and law as F. Lee Bailey and Jack Anderson. The polygraph has received media validation on a national level. The polygraph has developed into a multi-billion dollar business since its invention in the late 1920's, and it is now the longest running con game in the history of this country.

The polygraph is not a lie detector and it is not a truth verifier. The polygraph is simply a crude reaction recorder, and the reactions it records can be indicative of just about anything - anything except deception. Let me share with you how the polygraph works, and, incidentally, I have a machine here with me if anyone wants a demonstration.

Please look at exhibit B. That is what the polygraph actually records. I think you have been supplied with these. What we have here is a machine that can watch you breathe, watch two fingers on your right hand sweat, and watch your heartbeat. That is all the machine is capable of recording. During the test the examiner will ask a series of questions and watch for any changes in your breathing, perspiration, and blood pressure. These changes are called reactions. A casual look at this diagram shows a person's breathing has become erratic, blood pressure is elevated, and the hands are sweating. Does this mean the person is lying? Although it is absurd to come to this conclusion based on such flimsy evidence, that reaction is what polygraph operators refer to as indicative of deception, and that reaction has been the start of many tear-jerking sob stories because that reaction does, in fact, mean you have lied. I would submit that this exact same lying reaction can be caused by many things other than a lie. As a matter of fact, any number of innocent stimuli can and do cause this exact reaction—fear, rage, embarrassment, a phone ringing, pain from the cardio cuff, and even the tone of the examiner's voice. The validity of the lie detector is based on a phony set of 50 year old pseudo-scientific principles. And even polygraph experts do not have the temerity to refer to the polygraph as a lie detector, preferring words like "investigatory tool" instead. It is certainly a tool, or more correctly, a psychological billy club which allows even the most pusillanimous polygraph operator to become a terrorist. These con men know their profession is a fraud; that it is impossible for them to explain to anyone's satisfaction how they purport to be able to detect deception by simply recording a person's fight-or-flight response.

The piles of propaganda produced by the polygraph profession rival Hitler's propaganda machine. But the largest and most odoriferous pile is their theory of the control question. Simply stated, the control question technique is a method of comparing reactions. For example, if you happen to breathe in short, shallow breaths, your fingers start to sweat and your blood pressure increases when the polygraph operator asks you what you have stolen from work and you breathe calmly and evenly when he asks you if you ate breakfast this morning, you will fail your polygraph test. The unadulterated stupidity of the control question technique presumes two things that are impossible for the polygraph experts to prove. One, they must prove that only the questions cause a reaction. That it is impossible for any other stimuli to give you that little shot of adrenalin necessary to trigger a reaction. Two, and this is even more ridiculous, the polygraph experts must prove that a truthful person will only react to a control question and never react to a relevant question. It seems to me that the accusatory nature of the relevant question is a great deal more likely to elicit a response than some imaginary control question. Perhaps I am being too harsh. Here are some examples of control and relevant questions. You decide which are the more threatening of the two, which is more likely to cause you to have a fatal reaction. Can you name anyone in the company who is stealing? Can you drive a car? Have you ever used or sold marijuana? Have you had anything to eat today? Have you violated any of the company's rules and regulations? Do you drink coffee?

Remember the polygraph operator will compare your reactions to these two questions; and if you react more to the relevant than to the control, he will call you a liar. Despite what the polygraph proponents may say, the whole concept of lie detection via polygraph is nothing but a crock of propaganda.

The pre-employment polygraph examination is a setting for some of the worst cases of polygraph abuse because, unlike the criminal suspect, the job applicant cannot refuse the test without suffering as a result of their refusal. These polygraph examinations are simply an interrogation. The only part the polygraph plays is to sufficiently scare you enough to disclose the sordid details of your past indiscretions. I could make a good case for the proposition that we have an inalienable right to lie when confronted with a lie detector. Employers routinely circumvent Federal law by simply asking employees to take a lie detector test. Even the Government says it is illegal to ask about arrests and sexual habits in pre-employment tests. In fact, many areas are off limits to employers. But the employer can disregard the law by paying a "hired gun" to ask questions he is legally prohibited from asking.

Unfortunately, many people feel they can afford to tell the complete truth to every question put to them on the polygraph test. Their blind faith in the machine is sadly misplaced. The joke is on those who think the system is fair because the lie detector has a built-in bias against the truthful person. As a result, the more honest you are, the better your chances of failing the test. And the real irony is that the reverse is also true.

Anyway, I can tell the complete truth or a complete lie or anything in between and still pass any polygraph test given any time, by anyone, anywhere. Mark Twain said, "If you've done it, it ain't bragging." I have done it hundreds of times and I have instructed thousands of people to do the exact same thing by simply teaching them to distinguish between the control and relevant questions and to duplicate the physical response to fear on demand at the appropriate time. By following the instructions in the little manual that I have published, thousands of people have learned to consistently produce a truthful polygraph chart.

The polygraph profession has accused me of having a myriad of sordid motives for writing this manual. Perhaps their anger stems from the fact that the only power they have is derived from the fear and ignorance of their victims. I only hope I have been successful in tipping the balance of power from the terrorists to the victims by telling some of the tricks of this terrible trade.

As to my ex-colleagues' criticism, I would offer this thought for consideration: It would, after all, be the ultimate irony for a lie detector operator to object to the truth.

Mr. Martinez: Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Martinez: I have one question and it stems from what you said near the end of your testimony. I assume that what you said was that you can fool the polygraph examiner and you can teach other people to do it, too.

Mr. Douglas Gene Williams: Yes, sir, I can and have consistently. The polygraph records breathing, blood pressure, and your pulse rate, sweat activity on your hand. This is what you should look like when you are answering a relevant question—calm, even breathing pattern. When you answer a control, you should indicate that this upsets you.

All I do is teach people, One, how to distinguish between the questions, two, I hook them up on the polygraph and teach them to physically manipulate their response to fear. Now, what happens, you are afraid? The autonomic nervous system kicks in a little bit of adrenalin and what happens? You start to breathe erratically, panting and gasping for breath, your hands become sweaty and your blood pressure increases. Any erratic change is what the polygraph profession labels as a staircase breathing pattern. There are about five breathing patterns. I just teach a person to duplicate that breathing pattern when they are confronted with a control question, and to duplicate the response to fear.

Now it took a while. I was asked by a friend of mine on the police force when I was running these: "Bearing in mind that you are an expert, if you were confronted with a polygraph test, could you pass it?" I said, "Well, I can certainly control my breathing. I can appear to be calm and reasonable when I am answering a relevant question; and I can appear, through my breathing tracing, to be upset when I answer a control question. But how do I handle the sweat activity and the blood pressure?" I couldn't figure that one.

About 3 or 4 weeks after I had confronted myself with this problem, one of my friends came in and said, "Hey," he said, "we got in a chase last night." And he said, "Man," he said, "that guy was going well over a hundred miles an hour. And my partner was driving the car and he lost control. We went out across a bar ditch, tore out a barbed wire fence and went out into a pasture at 100 miles an hour." And he said, "Man, I was just pinching donuts out of that seat." I said, "What?" He said, "Yes." He said, "You know how when you get upset you just kind of pucker up like that."

I sat down immediately after he left, hooked myself up to a polygraph machine and duplicated what your body normally does when it is confronted with stress. It looks exactly the same on the polygraph, and there are at least 2,000 documented cases that prove that a polygraph examiner cannot tell the difference.

Mr. Martinez: Thank you. The reason I asked that question is because, if you remember, earlier I stated that we had a particular individual on a department that could teach people to do it. And he did it in precisely the way you have described. So I know for a fact that you can teach people to fool the lie detector.

[Prepared statement of Douglas Gene Williams follows:]Prepared Statement of Douglass Gene Williams, Ex Police Sergeant/Polygrapher, Oklahoma City, OK (I also entered a copy of my manual into evidence. It was not part of the actual testimony, but was entered into the official transcript as part of the official Congressional record of the hearings)

*The prepared statement, which is a copy of my first manual HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, and the exhibits referred to are in the appendix. WARNING! DO NOT TRY TO USE THIS OUTDATED METHOD TO PASS YOUR POLYGRAPH TEST. GET MY REVISED MANUAL AND VIDEO/DVD – THE TECHNIQUES I RECOMMEND TODAY ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES DESCRIBED HERE. If you are going to take a test, go to my website www.polygraph.com and get PROPERLY PREPARED with the most up-to-date information!

Within the first few minutes of my testimony, I began to hear mumblings and even a few audible gasps from those in the gallery who were there to witness and/or report on the proceedings. I could see by the startled looks on the faces of the congressmen that my testimony was certainly getting their attention. Oh no, I thought to myself, this is too much, my testimony is much too crude and offensive – this is going to be a disaster. But I had already started and so I plowed ahead with my prepared statement.

After I finished my testimony, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Martinez called for a recess. As I was gathering up my polygraph instrument and my papers and preparing to leave, he came down from his position with the committee and approached me. He had a big smile on his face and offered his hand for me to shake. "Congratulations, that was an excellent job, and you made a great impression on me and the rest of the committee.” He then asked me who I was with. I asked him what he meant and he repeated the question, "What organization are you with – who do you represent?" I told him I had no organization but that the constituency I represented was the millions of people who are the victimized by the polygraph every day. I told him I was glad to hear that he and his fellow congressmen would do their best to protect these people. And I told him that he would certainly be hearing a lot more from my constituency in the future. He looked at me with an incredulous look on his face and asked me again, "Do you mean to tell me that you have no organization and that you are not employed by anyone to be a spokesman?" “That is exactly what I'm saying congressman, as a matter of fact I'm probably the only one in this room who is not being paid to be here." He looked at me with a look of surprise mixed with compassion on his face. He grabbed my hand in both of his, looked intently into my eyes said, "Mr. Williams, I promise you we will do our best to get this bill passed into a federal law. And I want to personally thank you again for your excellent testimony."

As I turned to leave, I was surprised to see dozens of people with notepads, and cameras surging toward me. I was literally blinded by the lights and flashes from the cameras. Mr. Martinez called out to me as I was leaving, "Hey Doug, how about giving me a demonstration since you have your polygraph here." I turned and looked at him, knowing he was playing to the cameras, and retorted, "It’s surprising to me that you are all considering the fate of millions of people who have to take a polygraph test and you've never even seen a polygraph test being administered." I looked across the room and saw Mr. Barefoot who was then the president of the American Polygraph Association, and the primary pro-polygraph witness at the hearings. I looked at Mr. Martinez, and pointed to Mr. Barefoot. "But yes congressman, I'll be happy to give you a demonstration," I said, "If Mr. Barefoot will volunteer to be my subject." I continued, "I would be happy hook him up to the polygraph and ask him if he told the truth in his testimony before this committee."

Mr. Barefoot quickly grabbed his briefcase and almost ran out the door. This brought laughter from some of the congressmen, and even drew some jeers and whistles, directed at Mr. Barefoot, from most of the reporters and observers in attendance. All of the reporters followed me as I left the hearing room, and at their urging, I held an impromptu news conference in the hall which lasted well over an hour. I pointed out that the pro-polygraph people were conspicuous by their absence, and I wondered aloud why they would testify so boldly in support of the accuracy of the polygraph and yet be unwilling to take questions from the press. I told them I had nothing to hide and that I could prove everything in my testimony. In view of the reactions of the congressman and the news media, my testimony had obviously been very effective in spite of my misgivings.

After the news conference, I was approached by a producer from the Carol Randolph Show. This show was broadcast from Channel 9, a local CBS affiliate in Washington DC. A staff member from Representative Pat Williams’ office was standing nearby and encouraged me to accept the invitation. She said the Carol Randolph show was the most-watched daytime television talk show in Washington DC, and that most of the Congressman and Senators as well as most of their staff watched it on a regular basis. She added that representative Williams was scheduled to be a guest on the show along with Larry Talley, the vice president of the American Polygraph Association, and that they would be discussing the anti-polygraph bill that was the subject of today's hearing. I agreed to accept their invitation and the producer told me they would have a limo pick me up at my hotel in the morning at 8:00 AM.

Talley was one of the pro-polygraph witnesses who had testified against the proposed legislation in the hearing that just ended. This was the first time I had seen him in person, but I had debated him on a few radio talk shows. His hatred of me was palpable. During the debates, he would never try to debate me on the merits of the polygraph. He would never address my concerns about polygraph abuse, the validity of the polygraph, or the unethical actions of many polygraph examiners. It was obvious he could not defend his profession; so he always resorted to personal attacks on my character. I looked forward to meeting him face-to-face on a live television show.

The limo picked me up from the hotel the next morning and took me to the Carol Randolph Show studios. I walked into the studio carrying my polygraph, and was immediately confronted by Carol Randolph. She directed me to a set in the studio where all the lights were on, the cameras were rolling, and all the crew was in place. She looked at me and said, "You say you can teach a person how to beat a polygraph test in five minutes or less. Let's see you do it." By now I was used to being challenged to prove I could do what I had said I could do; teach a person how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will. I didn’t hesitate at all, I just smiled and said "Sure thing, that's no problem at all; I have done this thousands of times." I told her that I could easily teach her how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will. As I was saying all this I was getting my polygraph instrument prepared and when I was finished I asked her to take a seat and let me demonstrate. I put all the polygraph attachments on her, told her what the polygraph was capable of recording and explained to her what I wanted her to do. I trained her just like I had all the hundreds volunteers in my seminars and just like I had trained Jonathan on CBS NIGHTWATCH. She produced a perfect reaction just as I had trained her to do, I then tore off the chart, held it up to the camera, and pointed out where she had produced a reaction on all three tracings; the breathing, the GSR, and the cardio all showed a dramatic reaction which she produced on command.

When I was finished, she told me she was very impressed with my ability, and that I had proved to her that I could do just exactly what I said I could do. She looked somewhat embarrassed and confessed that she had planned to show that I was a fraud. That is why she had the cameras rolling when I came in. But since I had convinced her that I was the real deal, and she smiled and said, "You are so cute I got to have you on my show." She told the producers to bring another chair to the set and told me that I would be a guest on the show along with Larry Talley and Representative Pat Williams.

Carol Randolph started her show with footage of me teaching her how to beat polygraph. She opened the show by saying, "At 8:25 this morning I walked into the studio and met Doug Williams and former police polygraphist who became disenchanted with the polygraph, and since 1978, has taught thousands of people to beat this machine. Watch what happens." She started her show by presenting the entire video of me training her. It was a ten minute step-by-step demonstration of exactly how to beat the polygraph; a seminar on how to control every tracing on the chart in order to produce a perfect truthful polygraph test result. It was a very impressive visual aid for presenting my case on television, and it proved my case against the validity of the polygraph, especially the part where I tore off the chart, held it up to the camera and pointed out her reactions. As I told Ms. Randolph, “If I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a “lie detector”.” Ms. Randolph told me that she was an attorney and the fact that I could do that would indeed constitute evidence that the polygraph was not valid as a “lie detector”.

Much to Larry Talley’s dismay, my demonstration took up well over half of the time allocated for that segment, and it set the tone for the entire program. Ms. Randolph was obviously no longer impressed with the polygraph’s reliability or validity as a "lie detector". I watched as Talley became more and more agitated as he was forced to sit between me and Rep. Williams as we all watched my demonstration of how ridiculous his polygraph machine was, and how easy it was to beat. When the tape had finished playing, we went to a commercial break.

After the commercial break Rep. Pat Williams, Larry Talley, and myself were introduced to the audience. Ms. Randolph started by asking Representative Williams why he introduced legislation to ban the use of the polygraph in private industry. "Why are you opposed to the use of the polygraph machine? What's wrong with it?" She asked. Representative Williams just smiled and said, "You know Carol you are a wonderful talk show host but when I look at you I don't think you would make a very good liar. And yet Doug Williams took you aside for ten minutes and taught you how to beat this gadget. In other words they don't work; we have two million Americans subjected to them, losing jobs and being denied employment because of a gadget that doesn't even work." At this point, Larry Talley interrupted and immediately launched into a personal attack against me. Turning to me with a scowl on his face, he pointed his finger at me and said, "Doug Williams did not teach you how to beat the test, all he did was teach you how to add distortions to the chart. I think the most appropriate question to ask the viewing audience is what they think about a person who by his own admission goes around the country and has written a book about how to beat the test, and how to lie and cheat during the course of a polygraph test. And I don't even want to make any more comments about that because I don't want to give any credit to someone who doesn't deserve any credit". Ms. Randall turned to me and said, "Well Doug, you were a police officer, and now you are going around the country doing this. How do you respond to Mr. Talley’s charges?" I had debated enough polygraph operators by now, including Talley, to be used to their ad hominem attacks; they had to resort to personal attacks on my character; they could not debate the validity of the polygraph with me simply because they knew it was junk science. So I ignored his personal attack and I tried to bring the conversation back the problems involved with polygraph testing. “Well, the part about going around the country is quite correct. I do go around the country and teach people how to pass their polygraph tests when I'm able; but that is not my profession, since I don't get paid for it, I would describe it more as an avocation than a vocation." Ms. Randolph then asked, "Why are you doing this, why are you so opposed to the use of the polygraph? What is wrong with it?" I replied, "There are three things wrong with it; number one, it is an invasion of your privacy, number two, it does not work; and number three, I can teach anyone to control every tracing on the polygraph chart. Contrary to the statement that was just made; I did not simply teach you how to distort the chart, I taught you how to produce what any polygraph examiner would say is a truthful polygraph chart.” Talley interrupted again and said," What you did was to teach her to add distortions to the chart, and every polygraph examiner knows how to detect those countermeasures." I answered, "There's only one thing wrong with that and that is it is just not true. I have taught thousands of people how to pass their polygraph tests; I have personally used what I call my Sting Technique to beat every polygraph examiner in Houston Texas, Oklahoma City, and Dallas. There are thousands of people who use this sting technique daily to pass their polygraph tests." Again Talley interrupted, saying, "Ask Mr. Williams how many polygraph licenses he has in the United States. To my understanding, he is not even licensed to do this." Ms. Randolph said, "If a person reads Doug's book and does what it tells him to do, it seems to me they could beat it. I mean how accurate could the polygraph be if they know how to control the tracings on the charts?" I jumped in and said, "Let me respond question about licensing. I was the first person licensed to conduct polygraph examinations in the state of Oklahoma under the Oklahoma polygraph examiners licensing law passed in 1972. I was a licensed polygraph examiner for some seven years, and conducted over six thousand polygraph examinations. Simultaneous to that I took my degree in psychology from Oklahoma City University and I found that what I did for a living was a fraud. What the polygraph actually records is what's known as the fight or flight response. The polygraph industry says that when you show symptoms of this fight or flight response, which is simply nervousness, that you have told a lie. They equate nervousness with deception and that is wrong. The reaction that would brand you as a liar, this nervous fight or flight reaction to an accusatory question can be caused by any number of innocent stimuli; fear, embarrassment, or just plain nervousness can cause the exact same reaction that the polygraph industry says indicates you have lied." Again Talley interrupted and changed the subject because he knew he could not convince anyone that nervousness equated to deception. He said, "But Carol, the polygraph has been proven to be a very valuable tool to the American businessman. Forty billion dollars a year in thefts are attributed to employees in this nation. And we need the right to protect our assets, as the federal government needs the right to protect their national secrets." This time I interrupted. I glared at Talley and said, "I'll agree with that, it is a great tool, if by tool you mean a psychological billy club that will coerce a person into a confession. But there is not any evidence that the polygraph can detect deception; I cite the OTA (Office of Technology Assessment) report which proved this, I can also cite any number of congressional studies over the past twenty five years which have proved that the polygraph is not a lie detector." Carol Randolph said turning to Rep. Pat Williams, "Mr. Talley's argument about saving money, isn't that a valid consideration?" Mr. Williams smiled, leaned back in his chair, nodded his head in agreement, and said "Yeah you bet it is; the loss to American business from alleged employee theft is pretty large, and Larry may be right it could be as much as forty billion dollars. By the way, it's nothing compared to the crime of businessman against businessman I mean stock thefts and rip-offs that are going on in the board room against their competitors, illegally, are a lot more than forty billion dollars. But nonetheless, Larry's right, there is a lot of employee theft." The camera panned back and showed us all, with Larry Talley setting in the middle grinning like a big dumb ape as the congressman seemed to be agreeing with him. Then the sly Montana Congressman and consummate debater delivered the best line of the day when he said, "There's an old country singer by the name of Tom T Hall, and there is a line from one of his songs which says, ‘if they hang ‘em all, they get the guilty’, and that's what the lie detector does. In order to catch these few employees that might be stealing, they hang ‘em all. That isn't the way the American system is supposed to work." That pretty much ended the show. Talley interrupted again, and began a stuttering stammering tirade about how the polygraph really only protects the honest employees – it was just the ranting of a fool that I will not dignify by repeating here. But this “debate” was typical of all the hundreds of debates I’ve had and am still having with polygraph proponents. They can’t defend the polygraph, so they just attack me.

When the show was over, Talley and I were taken to our hotels in the same limo. He was still angry and obviously embarrassed about his poor performance in the debate, and when we got in the limo, he continued his tirade against me; telling me that I was making some very powerful enemies and that if I didn't stop what I was doing, something bad was sure to happen to me. I was getting tired of listening to him spew his venom, and had already considered giving him a quick chop to the larynx just to watch him bend over, gagging and choking while he tried get his throat to open enough to get a breath. Instead I just looked at him and said, "Listen you fat little toad, if you think you're big enough, why don't you try to stop me yourself right now. As a matter of fact you're about to let your mouth overload your ass, and if you don't shut up, I’m going to smash my fist into your fat face, and beat the shit out of you right here in the back seat of this limo.” Talley’s face turned as red as a beet and he looked at the chauffeur as though appealing for some help. About that time the limo pulled in front of my hotel and I looked at the chauffeur in the rearview mirror. I handed him a five dollar bill for a tip but he just waved it off. He smiled and winked at me in the mirror, and it occurred to me that he was probably one of the millions of people who were subjected to polygraph testing. I grabbed my polygraph, opened the door, and with my free hand shot the finger at Talley and said, "Enjoy all that money you're making while you can, asshole, because it’s not going to last much longer. I'm going to put you out of business, and you'll have to find an honest way to make a living." I slammed the door shut and walked to my hotel. I smiled as I heard the muffled sounds of an angry, frightened fat little toad of a man cussing me from the back of the limo as it pulled away.

Chapter 9 – GAINING MOMENTUM

As a result of my testimony in Congress, I became even more well-known as an advocate for the victims of the polygraph. And I began getting more and more invitations to radio talk shows, many of them nationally syndicated with very large audiences. I was interviewed many times over the next few months on various talk shows; all of them while standing in a phone booth outside my favorite convenience store. But thanks to my opportunity to testify in Congress, I now had a way of capitalizing on all the publicity I was getting. I had always encouraged people to write their representatives and support legislation that would ban the use of the polygraph in private industry. Many of them did, and some of their letters were included in the transcript of the hearings on the anti-polygraph house bills now being considered in the House of Representatives. But most people would not take the time to write or call, so I decided to offer them something that would entice them. On every talk show appearance from that point on, and there were many over the next three years, I would tell the audience to write their representatives and encourage passage of the polygraph protection legislation currently under consideration in the Congress. I told them that when they wrote their letters, that they should request a copy of my testimony which was part of the congressional record. I told them that I had included a copy of my manual in my testimony and that the representatives would send them a free copy if they would request one when they wrote. A few months later, when I was again in Washington DC, one of the congressional staff members told me that they had received so many letters that they had to assign one person full time just to respond to requests for copies of my manual. I said, "I promised Congressman Martinez that he would be hearing from my constituency and that they numbered in the millions. I guess he knows what I meant now." My crusade was really getting up a head of steam, and things were moving very quickly.

And I was also becoming more feared and hated by everyone in the private polygraph industry. And every debate would be marked by more vehement and vitriolic attacks against me personally. They were running scared, and I knew they would be more intense in their efforts to shut me up. I purchased a .12 gauge riot shotgun, loaded it with buck shot, and put it in the back of Moby Dick. The memory of the attack by rat face was still very vivid, and the veiled threats from the fat toad Talley worried me almost as much. I fully expected someone in the polygraph community to make another run at me at any time. But, to my surprise, the polygraph examiners decided to take a different approach than the one used by the rat faced man, and the fat toad Talley. Evidently they had decided that threatening me was not the best course of action to pursue, at least not yet. So, they sent a slick lawyer to make me an offer I couldn't refuse.

One day after work on my construction job, as I was sitting in the back of Moby Dick, I was approached by a well-dressed man who handed me a business card and introduced himself as an attorney associated with a law firm in Houston. He told me he represented a consortium of polygraph companies, and that he was authorized to offer me a position as a consultant for these firms. At first I was confused; I mean the whole scenario was bizarre to say the least. Here I was sitting on the back bumper of a 1967 Chevy panel truck, shirtless, wearing cutoff blue jeans and filthy, ragged tennis shoes. I was covered with sweat and sawdust, and my long hair partially covered my eyes as I stared in disbelief at the impeccably dressed lawyer standing in front of me. He appeared very professional and was wearing a suit that no doubt cost more than I had made in a year.

I pointed to a sawhorse nearby and told him take a seat. He smiled briefly and did as he was told. He pulled up the sawhorse next to the back of Moby Dick, dusted it off, and began his presentation. He told me that the polygraph firms would like to remain anonymous but he assured me their offer was valid, and that he had the contracts with him in his briefcase. All that was needed was to fill in the amounts and have me sign them. He outlined what the polygraph firms had proposed to do. He said they agreed with me that the polygraph had some problems that needed to be addressed and that I would be the best person to offer some solutions to those problems. He told me that I would be in charge of researching and proposing ways to improve polygraph testing; both in terms of validity and fairness to employees who were required to submit to the test. He told me that my compensation package would be very generous and that he was authorized to make a firm and binding offer of employment. He emphasized that in order for me to accept their offer employment, it would be necessary for me to immediately stop all opposition to the use of polygraph testing in any form.

I knew immediately that this was just the polygraph industry’s attempt at paying me off. They had tried to frighten me off, and that didn't work so now they were going to try this. I played along with the game. I had no intention of accepting any offer that would cause me to stop my crusade, but I was curious about what they would actually pay me to quit fighting them. I told the lawyer that I would require a contract for five years at $200,000 in annual salary. The lawyer simply said, “Agreed”. I added that I would require a signing bonus of $100,000 payable immediately. I also said I would need a company car; a new Mercedes-Benz, preferable the SL class, and a new model, leased and insured every year for the length of the contract. And I would, of course, need an expense account of about $2000 a month. Again the lawyer simply said, "Agreed". I added that I would expect them to provide me with a place to live and work out of, perhaps a three bed, two bath beach house with a study, and a nice ocean view; something on the beach in Malibu or Miami would do nicely. Again he agreed without hesitation. I then asked him if there was anything I could demand that would not be granted. He gave me a cold smile, shook his head, and said, "Let me put it to you this way, they will do whatever is necessary to get you to stop trying to destroy their industry."

I knew the polygraph industry was probably bringing in well over one billion dollars a year. And this lawyer was making it clear that they would pay me a small fortune to shut up and go away. I decided to quit playing games with the lawyer. I told him I was never going to be bought off, and that he could thank the polygraph companies for encouraging me to continue my crusade by letting me know by their generous offer how worried they were that I would succeed. He looked at me with eyes that were suddenly cold and hostile and said, "You will be lucky if you live long enough to regret this." He then dusted off the seat of his expensive suit and walked away.

President Reagan had greatly expanded the use of the polygraph in the federal government. The Defense Department was expanding its polygraph training school and government agencies were training as many polygraph examiners as they could to meet the demands of the increased number of polygraph tests being administered. The polygraph industry in the government was becoming even more powerful and pervasive. And I was under a great deal more surveillance by various government agencies. All that, coupled with the fact that the offer from the private polygraph firms was evidence that they would go to great lengths to stop me. I knew they could get someone to kill me for much less than they had offered to buy my silence. I had also heard that my private investigator friend, Jim Humphreys, had been arrested by the FBI on a four year old warrant for selling coke. I could feel the walls closing in on me.

Chapter 10 – A CHANGE WOULD DO YOU GOOD

The crusade was really getting dangerous – it was no longer a game – it was deadly serious. And I needed some sort of buffer between me and those who were intent on stopping or destroying me. I needed to be much more cautious about what I did from now on. I also needed to improve my appearance and the way I presented myself. The persona of a long-haired wild eyed crusader was no longer appropriate. I had received a lot of attention by playing that role, but I was moving into the big leagues now and I needed a more professional appearance and a more respectable platform from which to speak.

I returned to Oklahoma City, and discussed my dilemma with my dad. He told me he would set up a meeting with the Bishop to discuss a position as a local pastor in one of the United Methodist churches in the Oklahoma conference. He suggested I get a more businesslike haircut, and wear a suit for the meeting. I got myself cleaned up and was surprised to see that I could look very professional when I wanted to.

My dad was the Director of the United Methodist Foundation, and his office was down the hall from the bishop’s office at the Oklahoma conference headquarters of the United Methodist Church. His office building was located across the street from my alma mater, Oklahoma City University – a very prestigious Methodist University. I met dad at his office, and we went to the bishop’s office together. Bishop John Wesley Hardt was a very impressive looking man; he had kind eyes but had an air about him that let you know he was not a man to be trifled with. He and my dad had been friends for quite some time, and the Bishop greeted me kindly. He opened the conversation by getting right to the point, "What can I do for you young man?” he asked.

I gave him a brief rundown about my activities over the past seven years. I told him some of the highlights of my crusade against the polygraph, my reasons for trying to get it outlawed. I also told him about some of the problems I had encountered with the polygraph industry, and of the surveillance I had been under by various government agents. I told him I needed a position that would afford me some respectability, as well as some protection against those who were threatening me and trying to destroy my reputation and my credibility.

The Bishop smiled and said, "United Methodist Church has a long and honored tradition of social and political activism. And I am in full agreement with your position against the abuse of people by the polygraph industry. I also agree with you that something needs to be done to protect those who are victimized by this industry, and I applaud your efforts on their behalf." He told me that my father had been keeping him informed about my actions over the years and that he had seen me on television, read many newspaper articles, and had listened to me being interviewed on a few radio talk shows. He told me he was very impressed with my dedication to my cause and with my skill as a debater. He said he agreed that I needed a more professional position and platform from which to speak and suggested that I take an appointment as a local pastor. He told me he would assign me to a small country church, and that I would only be required to, "Be there to bring a message on Sundays, and be available to marry them and bury them as needed." He told me the rest of the time I could devote to my crusade. He concluded by saying I would be assigned to a small church in Fargo, Oklahoma immediately. I thanked him, but he waved off my thanks and told me to keep up the good work. He then grinned and said, "Let's see if the FBI can climb over the church steeple to get to you."

I was absolutely delighted, and greatly relieved. It was obvious my dad had done a lot of groundwork with the Bishop and had the "fix in" before our meeting ever took place. Good old dad, he always came through when I needed him. Now I had a place to live, a regular income, an office to work out of, a platform from which to speak, a respectable profession, and plenty of time to devote to my crusade. And I was assigned to a church in a very small town where any strangers would be easily spotted – that alone gave me a strong sense of security. All in all, it was an absolutely perfect set up.

My testimony in the US House of Representatives, and the many articles written about it were still generating a great deal of national attention. And it was much easier to respond to it now that I had a permanent address and phone number. I also played my role as a crusading Methodist minister to the hilt, and I got a lot of very positive publicity for my crusade. There were numerous articles in magazines and newspapers with headlines like, "METHODIST MINISTER CRUSADES AGAINST POLYGRAPH ABUSE". You can read some of these articles in the appendix of this book.

As a pastor, I had a fully equipped office in the church to work out of, and a nice house to live in. I devoted most of my time to my letter writing and phone calling campaign – I often thought how easy it was to do it this way instead of in the back of Moby Dick. I had abandoned Moby Dick by now and bought a nice car which I often drove to Oklahoma City to appear on local television and radio talk shows. I also got many invitations for telephone interviews and debates on many national radio talk shows. It was such a luxury to sit in my office at the church or in my nice house and debate the polygraph examiners from the comfort of my desk or my easy chair instead of standing in a public telephone booth.

Chapter 11 – GOING BIG TIME

In the early part of March 1986, I finally got a response to the dozens of letters I had written to CBS 60 MINUTES. They invited me to come to New York City to discuss the possibility of a program dealing with the abuses involved in polygraph testing of employees in private industry. They emphasized that this was just a preliminary discussion of the feasibility of a program investigating my allegations of such abuse. They sent me a round-trip airline ticket from Oklahoma City to New York City.

When I arrived in New York City, I was taken to the offices of CBS 60 MINUTES, where I met with Diane Sawyer, and a group of producers. It was obvious they were surprised at my professional appearance; I assumed the producers of CBS NIGHTWATCH had told them to expect someone quite different than the man they saw in front of them. I began to regret some of what I had said and done on that program. Although it had the desired effect, it was something I was now going to have to overcome if I was ever going to take my crusade to CBS 60 MINUTES. My reputation as a wild eyed crazy crusader had preceded me and I knew I had to somehow rehabilitate my image in their eyes.

I immediately liked Diane Sawyer; she was very kind and did her best to put me at ease when I was introduced to her. I was nervous and unsure as to how to proceed when Diane noticed the pin in my lapel. I was wearing my freshly cleaned brown Goodwill suit, and I always wore a small pin in the lapel. The pin is a replica of the seal of the President of the United States. It is awarded to every member of the military who had served in direct support of the President the United States for one year or more. When Diane saw the pin, she exclaimed, "You were with WHCA!” It was obvious from looks on the faces of the staff, that she and I were the only ones who knew what she was talking about. She turned to the others and asked me if I would tell them about my lapel pin. I explained to them that WHCA was short for the White House Communications Agency and that I had been assigned to the White House situation room from 1966 through 1969 as a communications advisor to Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Diane told me that she worked for President Nixon on the staff of Press Secretary Ron Ziegler from 1970 to 1974. I told her that we had missed crossing paths by just a few months. I told her that we probably had some mutual friends, and that I had worked in a situation room which was just down the hall from the Oval Office and a few feet away from the office of the Press Secretary. I told her that I had worked closely with Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger when they were in the White House National Security Council. This helped form an immediate bond between Diane and me, and more importantly, I could tell it impressed everyone on the staff and greatly improved their opinion of me.

For the next two or three hours, Diane along with the producers and staff conducted an in-depth interview; it was obvious they were not going to take a chance with someone who might embarrass them. I understood that completely; CBS 60 MINUTES had an excellent and hard earned reputation for being the best. I answered all their questions as candidly and completely as I could. I was polite but very passionate about my crusade and my heartfelt commitment to the millions of people who were victims of the polygraph industry and the myth of the "lie detector". I took the opportunity to tell them as many stories as I could about real-life experiences that people had related to me over the past few years. I told them about what I had been doing, about the seminars that I had conducted, and about my numerous debates with polygraph operators. At some point in the conversation I made a point of saying that not only were innocent truthful people called liars on a regular basis, but that the polygraph industry was so corrupt that employers could actually, "call-in their own polygraph test results". They asked me what I meant by that and I simply told them that if an employer wanted an employee to fail a polygraph test, all he had to do was tell the polygraph examiner he was sending over a liar – and the polygraph examiner would inevitably call that person deceptive on their polygraph test. They were astounded, and I could tell that many of them did not believe me. One of them even said, "It can't really be that bad". I told them that yes, it was that bad; I had seen that very thing happen, and it was not at all unusual. After the interview, they thanked me for my time, and told me they would be in touch with me soon.

After our conversation, Diane Sawyer pulled me to the side and with a very concerned look on her face she told me, "Doug, I don't see any way you can come out on this." I asked her what she meant by that and she said, "I have been doing this for some time now and I think you are probably the only true crusader I have ever met. I can usually see how most people profit from their ‘crusading’, but I don't see how there is anything in this for you." I looked at her and told her with a touch of gallows humor that I would be very surprised if I came out of it alive.

A couple of weeks later on a Friday around the middle of March, I got a call from Gail Eisen, one of the producers of 60 MINUTES. She told me that she and a film crew were going to come to Fargo, Oklahoma to visit with me and film an entire Sunday morning church service. I told her I would be very happy to have them visit. She told me they would meet me there sometime in the middle of next week.

When I told my congregation the following Sunday that CBS 60 MINUTES would be there next Sunday to film the entire service, they were all very excited. Fargo had a population of approximately three hundred people and this would be the biggest thing that had ever happened there. The little Methodist Church in Fargo usually had about fifty people in attendance most Sundays. They were kind, generous, loving, and very supportive of my crusade against the polygraph. They truly did minister to me much more than I ever ministered to them.

Gail Eisen and her CBS crew arrived in Fargo on Thursday, and immediately started interviewing people in the town at random. There were no hotels in Fargo so they had to commute back and forth from Woodward which was about twenty five miles away. They would spend the day in Fargo filming the outside of the church, filming me at work in the church office, and even got footage of me visiting with various people in the town. I think they talked to just about everyone in town during the next two days. On Sunday morning, they asked permission to set up in the church and I met them there at about 7:00 AM. They set up their cameras, lights, and microphones as though they were preparing a movie set. Back then, CBS 60 MINUTES filmed everything with movie cameras exactly like those used to film major motion pictures. They would then edit the film and make a VHS tape of the edited version so that they could have the best quality first generation tape available for broadcasting – it also had a depth and color quality not found in a regular VHS tape. So that Sunday in March 1986, the United Methodist Church in Fargo, Oklahoma became a working movie set. They filmed the entire service from the opening prayer to the closing hymn. They filmed everyone coming into the service, and filmed me shaking hands with everyone as they were leaving after the service. You can read some articles about this in the appendix of this book.

I thought at first they were going to do a human interest type story on me and my crusade; that was the only reason I could think of for them to go to that much trouble to visit me out in the middle of nowhere, interview everyone in town, and film an entire church service. But later it was evident to me that this was just a very thorough background investigation. They were there to check me out and make sure I was who I represented myself to be. My reputation as a crazy crusader was hard to live down. Not one minute of the many hours of film they had taken was ever shown on the CBS 60 MINUTES segment when it was aired.

When they left Fargo after the church service on Sunday, the producer shook my hand, thanked me for my cooperation, and told me that someone would be in touch with me soon.

The following Thursday afternoon, I got another call from Gail Eisen who told me that Diane Sawyer was going to do a CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report on the polygraph and that she, Gail, was going to be the producer. She asked me if I would be interested in taking part in this investigation. I immediately told her that I would jump at the chance. She asked me how much time I would be able to devote to the project and I told her that as a pastor I was committed to working on Sunday, but that I would be free to work with them every other day of the week for as long as they needed me. She told me she would arrange transportation and hotels for me and that I could catch a flight out of Oklahoma City the following Sunday afternoon and meet with her first thing Monday morning to begin work on the investigation. I agreed and she thanked me; when I hung up the phone I began laughing, jumping up and down, and clapping my hands all at the same time. I was overjoyed. Finally, after all these years, I had achieved my goal of taking my crusade to CBS 60 MINUTES!

The following Monday morning I met with the producer, Gail Eisen, to discuss how to proceed with the production of the segment on the polygraph. I was immediately impressed with Gail. She was very intelligent, witty, creative, and most of all very gutsy. She got right down to business by saying, "You told us in our first meeting that the polygraph industry was so corrupt that you could, and these are your words, ‘call in your test results’". She paused, looked me directly in the eye and said, "You are here to help me prove whether or not that is true". I was somewhat taken aback by her direct approach and I was worried that I may have overstated the case against the polygraph with that bold assertion. I knew that what I said was true, and I had seen that very thing happen in the past, but how was I going to prove that it was common practice? I told her that I knew this happened, but I was not sure that all polygraph examiners were that corrupt. And I told her that even if they were, I was not sure how I could possibly prove it.

Gail just looked at me and said, "You were a police investigator, so investigate! If what you say about the polygraph industry is correct, you should be able to prove it. Just assume that you are still a detective, and this is your assignment.” she said with a smile, "Now how do you suggest we prove your allegations that these polygraph operators are corrupt?"

I paused for a moment to gather my thoughts and then told her that I had been thinking about how this should be presented for many years. I had in mind that we should tell the audience how widespread the use of the polygraph had become, and allow some of the victims of the polygraph to tell their stories. Every year thousands of truthful people were called liars and had suffered the loss of employment, and irreparable damage to their reputation. I told her that I had not really considered the possibility that I would have to prove what may have been a rash statement. I knew that polygraph examiners would do almost anything to please those employers who hired them, and that it was not uncommon for them to call truthful people liars simply because the employer had indicated that they should.

Gail just looked at me and said, "You are the one who made the accusations, and it is up to you to prove them. As you know, in the eyes of the law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You have accused the polygraph industry of many evil and fraudulent activities; we are giving you an opportunity to make your case against them." Gail was basically calling my bluff, she was telling me to put up or shut up.

I thought for a moment and finally said, "Well if I were the lead detective on this investigation, I would set up a real life situation in which the polygraph would be used to test people just like they are tested thousands of times every day." I suggested that we make our investigation as realistic as possible so as to avoid any criticism from the polygraph industry that we are not being fair. I told her that it is common practice for employers to request polygraph examinations on people when they are suspected of thefts. I told her that the polygraph industry contends that the "specific issue" test is the most accurate. I suggested that we find an actual business that would allow us to use their facilities and test actual employees about a specific accusation of a theft. I also suggested that we choose the largest and most prestigious polygraph firms for this investigation.

Gail and I both began to get excited about the project; we were bouncing ideas back and forth like tennis players. Gail was very creative and innovative; and it was obvious that she had a great deal of experience in setting up this type of "sting operation". After about three hours of back and forth, we had the basic outline of our plan in place.

I will admit that I was very nervous and unsure about how this would all work out. There was a very good chance that the polygraph industry would come out looking good and I would be made to look like a malcontent with a grudge, making outlandish and irresponsible accusations – none of which I could prove.

But the plan was in place, and I was committed. For the next three weeks, I spent Monday through Friday in New York City working with Gail on project. We used the offices of a magazine called Popular Photography. This magazine was owned by CBS so they really had no choice but to cooperate with us. We went in and basically took over three of the rooms in their suite of offices. In one room we put pipes in the ceiling to disguise our microphones, cut holes in the wall and put pictures over the holes that had a special photographic gel, the kind that cameras could see through. This would be the room where the polygraph test would be administered. In the room next door, we set up cameras to record the polygraph tests as they were being conducted. In another room, Gail and I along with some of the staff monitored everything the cameras recorded in the polygraph testing room.

Finally the day arrived when we were scheduled to have the first polygraph tests administered. I knew everything was on the line, my crusade, my reputation, and more importantly, the fate of the millions of polygraph victims. If I could prove the polygraph industry was as corrupt as I said it was, it would go a long way towards putting an end to the abuse. To say I was nervous would be a great understatement. I had barely slept at all the night before, and my blood pressure was so high that I awoke in the middle of the night to find a large spot of blood on my pillow where I had bled through a small mole on the side of my face. It was frightening to think of how high my blood pressure must have been to have caused that. But that morning I got dressed and met Gail in our observation room in the offices of Popular Photography. We were both excited, and full of nervous energy. I was literally pacing the floor as we waited for the polygraph examiner to arrive.

In setting up our sting, we used an assistant producer by the name of Janet Tobias to act as the personnel director for the magazine. She had contacted a polygraph company called Spartan Security Services. They sent Kevin Cassidy, a polygraph examiner from their staff, to administer tests. We used four actual employees of the magazine; Julia, Bob, Lorraine, and Paul. We told them they were going to be given polygraph examinations to determine whether or not they had stolen a Nikon camera. No camera had been stolen, no crime had been committed, and all they had to do was to tell the truth. We even promised them a reward of $50 if they could pass the polygraph test. Prior to the test, Janet, acting as our personnel director, had given Mr. Cassidy a tip; she told him that thief might be Paul. Cassidy tested all four employees, and he told Paul, "You come up very shy as far as truthfulness goes".

Gail and I looked at each other – she had a stunned look on her face, while I was grinning ear to ear. Now I had proof that what I said was true; the polygraph industry is so corrupt you can actually, ‘call in your test results’. We hugged each other, jumped up and down, and began laughing. She put her hand over my mouth because I was laughing entirely too loud and she was afraid the polygraph examiner who was still two rooms away would hear me. I didn't care, I had been vindicated, and I had proved that the polygraph industry was just as corrupt and fraudulent as I had said they were. I also knew that when this was shown to the public it would be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. I knew this would be exactly what was needed to turn public opinion against the polygraph industry and that it would almost certainly ensure the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.

After the polygraph examiner left, we all met in the room where Gail and I had been monitoring what the cameras had recorded. We looked at all the tapes again and were satisfied that we had good video and audio of all four polygraph examinations. I was relieved and very happy to have been able to prove that the polygraph industry was nothing but a scam and that polygraph examiners were nothing but con artists. Everyone was congratulating me on accurately predicting what the polygraph examiner would do.

I looked at Gail and said very smugly, "Well, it certainly looks like I have proved my case against the polygraph." She motioned for me to come with her to the corner of the room where she said quietly, "I think we need to have a different polygraph examiner administer the tests on our volunteers." I asked her why and she explained that the polygraph industry would simply say that this was an isolated incident, that it was a mistake made by an incompetent examiner, or that this was an anomaly and that Mr. Cassidy did not accurately represent the polygraph industry.

My heart sank to the bottom of my stomach, and all my pride at having been vindicated disappeared; but I had to agree with her assessment of what the polygraph examiners would likely say. I reluctantly agreed that in order to prove my statements conclusively, we would have to bring in another examiner from another polygraph firm. Not only that, but we would have to prove that we could get the same results; that is, show that the next polygraph examiner would call a truthful person a liar simply because we suggested that they were. Once again I could feel the tentacles of fear gripping my guts and I was even more nervous than I had been before. Perhaps my blanket indictment of the entire polygraph industry was a mistake; perhaps my saying that you could always "call in your test results", was going too far. I began to wonder what the odds were that two out of two polygraph examiners would call innocent truthful people liars on a crime that never even happen just because we said that one of them might be the thief. I knew many polygraph operators were frauds, and that they were unethical if not outright dishonest. But could I prove that they all were? It seemed I would be in for more sleepless nights pondering that question.

It took another day for Janet Tobias to get another polygraph examiner scheduled and I repeated my request that all the polygraph examiners be chosen from the largest and most prestigious firms in New York City. I muttered to Gail that the phrase "prestigious polygraph firm" was an oxymoron, but I wanted to deprive the polygraph industry of any excuse for the behavior of the polygraph operators involved in our investigation by accusing us of getting unqualified examiners from some fly-by-night organization. I met Gail the next day and we got ready to monitor the filming of yet another series of polygraph examinations administered by yet another polygraph examiner, this time one from a different "prestigious" polygraph company.

Our second polygraph operator was Joe Diaz, from Intelligence Services Incorporated. This time, Janet Tobias, our "personnel director", said that Bob just might be the thief. And sure enough while Paul passed easily this time, Joe Diaz said that Bob was deceptive, even though no camera had been taken. After testing Bob, Diaz told him, "From what I see right here", indicating Bob’s polygraph chart, "I know I'm right on the money". Bob told Dias, "I don't care if your lines are off the page, I didn't take the camera".

Joe Diaz called in our Janet Tobias and the managing editor of the magazine to discuss the results. Diaz warned that to fire Bob solely on the results of the lie detector could result in a lawsuit, so they should look for other reasons. Diaz told them, "I told him, hey, I'm 100% sure that you got the camera, and he wouldn't even look at me straight in the eye".

That afternoon, we all met to discuss the day's events. Again everyone was amazed that yet another different polygraph examiner had called yet another different innocent truthful person a liar when they had been telling complete truth. I acted like I shared their feelings of amazement, but I will admit I was greatly relieved. So far I was two for two; but I could tell by looking at Gail that we were not finished with the investigation yet. This time I beat her to the punch and asked, "Do you want to go for three out of three?" She gave me a sly half grin and just nodded her head yes.

Our third polygraph operator was Ed Sullivan from Sterling Polygraph Systems. And he also called a different innocent truthful person a liar. When this segment was aired, Diane Sawyer said, "When he came in to test our four people, we told him something entirely different; we told him we thought Loraine might have taken the camera. Ed Sullivan passed Paul and Bob, the two who had failed before, and indeed his candidate for deception was Loraine." I stood there in the monitoring room with Gail and the rest of the crew and it was obvious they were dumbfounded. I just grinned and said, I think that's what they call a hat trick; three out of three scores for me!" I looked at Gail and asked, “Have I now proved my case to your satisfaction? Would you agree that I have proved conclusively that the polygraph industry is so corrupt and fraudulent that you can in fact call in your test results?" Gail smiled and said, "You most certainly have, and this program is going to be a classic."

Gail looked at me with a quizzical look in her eyes, and I held my breath, waiting for the other shoe to drop. "What now?” I asked, trying to hide my irritation, and wondering what else it would take to satisfy her. She looked at me with an impish grin on her face and asked, "Do you think you could go in there right now and beat him?" I did not hesitate for even one second, I nodded my head yes, and said, “Sure, I’ve already told you, I can lie about everything and still pass any polygraph test given by anyone, anytime, over anything." I looked at one of the guys on the staff and asked him, "Would you be kind enough to go get me the camera and lens we have been questioning everyone about having stolen?" He nodded, and got the camera and lens out of a cabinet in the storage room. I asked Gail to put the camera and lens in the briefcase and give it to me. We then called Janet Tobias and told her to tell Ed Sullivan, the polygraph examiner, not to leave. I told her to tell him we had one other prime suspect for him to test, a man who she believed may have been involved with Loraine in the theft of the camera and lens.

I took the briefcase containing the camera and lens, and went in to the room with Sullivan where and he administered a polygraph examination to me exactly like the ones he had to all the others; asking questions about the theft the camera. I lied about everything including my name. At the conclusion of the test he got up from behind the desk, and came up to me and shook my hand. He said, "Mr. Jones it is a pleasure to meet you. You are the most honest person I have ever tested." It was all I could do to keep from laughing in his face as I turned and left the room. I could not resist turning to our hidden camera and giving them the thumbs up sign, a big grin, and a couple of exaggerated winks.

The producers asked the three companies involved to come in and be interviewed about the polygraph tests that had been conducted. Only one of them agreed; William Winblat, of Sterling Polygraph Systems, accepted. It is worth watching the entire 60 MINUTES segment just to see Mr. Winblat squirm, and listen to his lame excuse for the actions of Mr. Sullivan, his polygraph operator. At one point, Diane asked Winblat how he could explain the fact that his polygraph operator called and innocent truthful person a liar simply because we had indicated she might be a thief. He hung his head in shame, looked down at the floor, and said simply "It shouldn't be”. I thought later that that was probably the only truthful thing he said during the entire interview. "It shouldn't be" pretty much summed up the entire polygraph industry as far as I was concerned. All in all, Diane Sawyer did a good job of interviewing Winblat, but she did not ask him about how I could pass Mr. Sullivan's polygraph examination while lying on every question. For some reason CBS 60 MINUTES cut out the part of the show where I beat the polygraph test. I was very disappointed that that part was not aired and I still to this day do not know why it was cut. I heard rumors that the CBS Corporation was actually using polygraph examinations on some employees and that they didn't want them to know how easy it was to beat the test, but again those were just rumors that I had no way of verifying. I also heard that they "just couldn't get it past the lawyers".

Diane Sawyer also interviewed my arch enemy, Larry Talley, the vice president of the American polygraph Association. He tried his best to explain away the fraud and corruption that we had exposed in the polygraph industry. He used the same old tired phrases that his industry had used for years when facing criticism. When confronted with the fact that three out of three different polygraph examiners call three different innocent truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened, he just used the same rhetoric saying, "Our industry, as we have tried to state a case for, does need more regulation, and that the test results, here again, should not be the sole criteria for making decisions about a person's livelihood, their job." Talley also looked nervous and started stuttering toward the end of that last statement. It was obvious he didn't believe a word of his own bullshit.

That episode of CBS 60 MINUTES, was first broadcast on Mother's Day Sunday, May 11th, 1986, and it was aired numerous times over the next two years until the Employee Polygraph Protection Act became law . The title of the segment was "TRUTH and CONSEQUENCES". You can watch this by going to www.polygraph.com and clicking on the MEDIA page.

The CBS 60 MINUTES segment on the polygraph caused an immediate uproar in the media. I was invited to appear on numerous local television shows, scores of newspaper and magazine articles were written about it, and I did as many as three radio talk shows a day for weeks thereafter. I was also very happy to be living in a small town in western Oklahoma; it would be impossible for another rat face with a gun to sneak up on me here because I knew everyone in town.

With the 60 MINUTES broadcast, I had another weapon in my arsenal. I had proved on CBS NIGHTWATCH how easily a person could be taught to beat the polygraph; how they could learn to control every tracing on the polygraph chart so as to always produce what the polygraph examiner would conclude was a truthful chart. And while there were many thousands of people who claimed to have been called a liar on their polygraph tests when they were in fact telling the truth, there was no evidence to prove that this was happening. That is, until that Mother's Day in 1986. With the broadcast of that CBS 60 MINUTES investigation, I now had proof that truthful people were routinely called liars by the polygraph con men.

Chapter 12 – FROM WILD EYED CRUSADER TO WELL DRESSED LOBBYIST

I immediately began showing tapes of both NIGHTWATCH and 60 MINUTES in my seminars. Now I could prove that I could not only teach you how to beat the test but that it was imperative that you learn how to implement the "STING TECHNIQUE" in order to keep from being called a liar even though you are telling the truth.

I spent quite a few days over the next several months going back and forth to Washington DC to lobby members of the Senate in hopes of persuading them to ban the use of the polygraph in private industry. In March of 1986, the US House of Representatives had already voted to pass the bill which would become The Employee Polygraph Protection Act, but the Senate still had to approve the bill before it became a law. And that would take quite a lot of time. The EPPA was not signed into law until 1988, and many versions of various bills would work their way through committees before that happened. Not only that, but we needed at least a two thirds majority to overcome what the sponsors of the bill were certain would be a presidential veto. President Reagan had already attempted to expand the use of the polygraph in many areas of government by presidential directive, so it was obvious that he was a big fan of the polygraph. I spent many weeks between 1986 and 1988 lobbying staff members, Senators, and Representatives in support of the EPPA.

I would sometimes be invited by various union officials, sometimes invitations would come from the Senators themselves, or from staff members of various Senators or Representatives. While I often paid my own expenses, the AFL-CIO, as well as many other interested unions, and the ACLU were very helpful in providing me with air fare and lodging during the years following the 60 MINUTES broadcast. It was a very hectic period; I would often fly to Washington DC on Sunday afternoon, and spend Monday through Friday visiting with staff members, and members of the Senate and House, about the need to outlaw the use of the polygraph, particularly in the private sector. I would go from office to office carrying my polygraph instrument and a large briefcase full of copies of my house testimony and copies of my manual. I would offer to demonstrate my technique by asking for a volunteer and giving my quick demonstration of how easily they could manipulate all the readings on the polygraph chart. This never failed to draw a crowd and was always a very eye-opening, educational, and entertaining experience for the, Representatives, Senators and members of their staff. I would also leave them copies of the tapes of both NIGHTWATCH, and 60 MINUTES.

In June of 1986, I was invited to come to Washington DC again. This time I was going to be a member of the Office of Technology Assessment to study and review the Department of Defense polygraph program. This was a very prestigious assignment because the OTA was a key resource for Congressional members and staff confronting technical issues and it guided them in crafting legislation and public policy. The research and writing of the report submitted by the OTA to Congress was accomplished by a staff of about two hundred, most of which had PhD's. But for the actual studies of individual subjects, they relied on people like me, key individuals with expertise in the specific areas under investigation, and members of the scientific community. When I received the letter inviting me to be a contractor and member I could not help but grin; I guessed I had finally become an official "expert".

When I arrived at the designated meeting place for the Office of Technology Assessment, I was very impressed. Outside the main meeting room, was a sort of reception area, where the members of the panel and others were chatting quietly and helping themselves to drinks and trays full of fruit and pastry. I glanced in to the meeting room and saw that it was filled with chairs for spectators on both sides, and in the center was a long, very beautiful horseshoe shaped wood table. I noticed there were engraved nameplates placed in front of the executive chairs which were placed around the table. At the head of the table was an engraved nameplate with the name of the person underneath the word CHAIRMAN. Others that I could see had names on them followed by PhD. As I looked around the group, no one seemed interested in talking to me, those who looked back quickly diverted their eyes, and again it was as though I was invisible. I grabbed a cup of coffee, went into the conference room, and began looking for my name on one of the engraved nameplates. At the very end of the table on the right-hand side nearest to the door, my eyes were drawn to a piece of white poster board with my name scrawled on the front of it in black magic marker. So much for being an "expert", I thought to myself. There were making it obvious in a very dramatic way that I was not exactly an honored guest.

But by now I was getting used to this type of treatment. And I understood the reasons for the way they felt. I really did not fit in with any group. As far as those in academia were concerned, my little undergraduate BS degree was of no consequence, and therefore what I had to say would simply be the opinion of an uneducated man, and would be of little or no interest to them. As far as those in the polygraph industry were concerned, I was nothing more than a traitor; a malcontent who was slandering their good names and making wild accusations against an industry that was vital to maintaining the integrity and honesty of government employees and which was vital to national security.

I thought to myself, "Well at least I'm getting paid." I had been fighting against the use of the polygraph for almost eight years. I had put on hundreds of seminars, debated scores of polygraph examiners on radio and television, and had distributed thousands of manuals; but in all those years I had never made one dime. Now for the first time I was being paid to give my opinion about the polygraph. The contract they had sent me from OTA was for $200 plus expenses. And by God, I was going to give them their money's worth.

A few minutes after the chairman began outlining the purpose of the meeting, it became clear to me that we were not here to do anything. We were here to decide who would receive the lucrative contracts from the Department of Defense to study their polygraph program. Basically, all these representatives from academia and the so-called scientific community were assembled to petition the government for handouts. The purpose of this meeting was to allow these people to present their requests for grants and to plead for taxpayer money to study (legitimize) the use of the polygraph by the Department of Defense. I was literally sickened as I watched these whores competing to turn a trick. I was reminded of Pres. Eisenhower's warning about problems inherent in the military industrial complex. As the chairman went around the table, calling upon each of them to make their presentation I was getting more disgusted with each boot licking supplicant that rose to speak. They were shameless in their deference and their feigned respect for the representatives of the Department of Defense polygraph program.

As the disgusting display continued, I became aware of a group of men that had gathered behind me. They were sitting on metal folding chairs and had moved them from the spectator’s area to form a very close semicircle circle behind my chair. I had been so intent on listening to the assembly of whores present their case for a government handout, that I had not noticed that I was literally being surrounded by a group of eight to ten large and obnoxious men. They were making snide comments about me, whispering to each other and giggling quietly; it was obvious they were trying to intimidate me or at least distract me in some way. They were so close to me that I could actually feel their breath on the back of my neck. One of them whispered in my year, "You know Doug, you could afford a decent suit if you'd come to work for us; we could offer you a job starting at GS 14." I knew that was about $50,000 a year. I didn't bother telling him that I had already turned down twice that, and that in 1969, I had turned down an offer of a GS 16 to stay and work with Henry Kissinger in the White House. I tried to keep my mind on what was being said by the participants on the panel.

About that time, the chairman called my name and asked if I would present my proposal to the board. I certainly had no intention of begging for a government contract. I was very disgusted by what I had observed so far, and I was very angry at the sophomoric attempts at intimidation by the men behind me. But I certainly had something to say about the polygraph and what I thought about anyone who would use it. So, I simply said, “Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman.” As I tried to stand up, I realized the one of men behind me was leaning back in his chair with his foot pressed against the back wheel of my chair. He held my chair in place so as to prevent me from pushing back from the table far enough to get to my feet. I turned and looked at him staring at me with a sullen expression. I was even angrier and I pushed hard against the large table in front of me with both hands. I pushed my chair back and tipped him and his chair backwards. As he fell, he tried to catch his balance, but only succeeded in kicking his metal chair to the floor with a resounding crash; he ended up in the lap of the man behind him and began sputtering in rage. I glared at the group of men behind me who were now in a pile and said, “You should know by now that when you push me, I push back harder!” I then turned back to face the panel and was amused to see that the looks on their faces ranged from confusion to shock and fear. It was obvious that none of the OTA members had ever witnessed anything quite so barbaric in any of their prior meetings. I did notice two men in US Army dress uniforms in the spectators section on the other side of the room. One was a full colonel, and the other a three-star general; both had grins on their face and the general gave me a subtle nod of approval. That small gesture of support encouraged me. I smiled at all those assembled around the table, and calmly reached into my briefcase and pulled out a copy of my manual and the tapes of NIGHTWATCH and 60 MINUTES; I placed them on the table in front of me and began to speak as though nothing had happened.

"Mr. Chairman,” I said, "I would like to start by thanking you for your invitation to be a panel member, but that would not be appropriate since it is obvious that neither you nor anyone else on this panel invited me. I simply have to compare my hand written paper name tag to those beautifully engraved nameplates in front of everyone else to get an idea of your opinion of me and how welcome I am. It is quite clear that someone in authority over you, I suspect it was Congressman Pat Williams, demanded that I be invited, and you grudgingly complied because you had no other option. Perhaps he wanted at least one person who would not be a sycophant groveling for a handout from the government." The chairman's face began to turn red and I noticed some uneasy movement and a few whispers between a few of the panel members. I continued, "I don't know who to thank or for that matter who to blame for inviting me here, but I will not waste this opportunity to tell you a few things about the polygraph that no one else here will have the guts or honesty to say. I will start by telling you something you already know. Three years ago, in 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment studied the validity of the polygraph as a lie detector.” I paused to retrieve some notes from my briefcase, and continued. "This very organization, the OTA, submitted a report to the Congress entitled, ‘Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation’, in this report this very body concluded and I quote, ‘OTA concluded that there is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing. Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance (when using the control question technique in specific-incident criminal investigations), significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.’ So we all know two things about the polygraph, assuming you believe the conclusions of your own report; one, it is not a lie detector, and two, I can teach anyone how to beat it. That research was done three years ago, and I have here my own research which proves exactly the same things. I will not ask for a grant for thousands of dollars; I will give them to you free of charge." I held up two VHS tapes. I said, "These are tapes of CBS NIGHTWATCH and CBS 60 MINUTES, I would like to submit them as research which was conducted after your 1983 report, research which confirms your findings. The first tape proves the statement in the 1983 report which says, the use of countermeasures may affect validity. On this program I demonstrated how easy it is to train a person in the use of countermeasures. In other words, I proved that I could easily teach anyone how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will. It is interesting to note that the person I trained in countermeasures for this program was an attorney from the US Department of Justice, so no one can claim he was one of my people or that he had any hidden agenda. The second tape proves the other point you made in your 1983 report when you stated that even where the evidence seems to indicate that the polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance, significant error rates are possible. In this program, I proved significant error rates are indeed possible, but I would amend that statement now to read probable rather than possible. In this research, the results of which were released just last month, I proved that the polygraph is wrong 100% of the time. In this study, three out of three different polygraph examiners called three out of three innocent truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened. This booklet is an instruction manual that I have distributed to thousands of people; it is also part of the Congressional transcript of my testimony in the United States House of Representatives. It details exactly how to pass any polygraph test, given by anyone, anytime anywhere. And I have taught thousands of people to do just that. So, I ask you; why are we here? There should not even be a DOD polygraph program for us to review. The polygraph is worthless, it is in fact worse than worthless it is dangerous, dangerous to the people who are subjected to it, dangerous for the people who use it, and even more dangerous for the people who rely upon it for our national security. As a member of this panel, I am entitled to a report detailing how you plan on wasting taxpayer’s money to review a government program which uses an instrument which has been proved to be invalid. So please send me the report, and I will respond to it in a manner which I deem appropriate. But I will not further dignify or legitimize this pathetic charade with my continued presence. And I don't want to hang around any longer in case these bully boys behind me decide to try to whip my ass."

With that, I picked up my polygraph and my briefcase, pushed my chair back, and walked out of the room. Behind me I heard whispers, gasps, curses; and to my surprise and amusement, the slight echo of laughter and a smattering of applause.

A few months after I returned to Oklahoma, I did indeed receive a copy of the OTA report detailing their plan for reviewing the DOD's Polygraph Program. I wish I still had a copy of the report, but if I recall correctly after I read it I was so disgusted I tore it up and tossed it in the trash. I did however respond to them in a manner which I deemed appropriate, just as I had promised I would. I wrote a letter addressed to the OTA and sent a courtesy copy to the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The text of that letter is as follows: "I am enclosing information I would like to be made a part of the official record for the final OTA report to the Congress and Senate. I hope you emphasize the stupidity of continuing to study a machine that can be controlled, totally and completely, by anyone who can control their bowels.”

“I have taught thousands of people how to manipulate the tracings on the machine - how to out-con those ridiculous con man that call themselves polygraphers. This polygraph scam is the longest running con game in the history of this country! I cannot believe we are actually continuing to spend money to study something that is becoming a laughingstock. As I told you in our meeting I have taught thousands of people to pass their polygraph examinations, and I have never had even one student who was unable to produce a truthful chart after twenty minutes training. In the past eight years I have taught thousands of people from all walks of life, and, as I testified in our meeting, I taught a Justice Department attorney who was kind enough to demonstrate his skill at countermeasures on national television, (see enclosed VHS tape). In the report you sent me, on pages 7 and 8 there is some good evidence; the only credible evidence in the entire first draft of the OTA report, proving the value of countermeasures. You state that trained people can beat it 35% of the time using physical countermeasures, and that people using mental countermeasures can also beat it 35% of the time, and that simply educating people about how the polygraph works is also a valid countermeasure. That simply proves that the machine can be totally manipulated by just about anyone, and that the polygraph operator is nothing but a “four flushing con man”. My training combines all three, the physical training, the mental training, and the education – and it is 100% successful every time in every imaginable situation. Anyone who relies on the results of this instrument is a fool and anyone who spends our money to perpetuate this insidious con game is a scoundrel.”

“Page 5 of the OTA report is enough to induce vomiting. I cannot believe we are spending $590,000 to study the modern-day equivalent of walking on a bed of hot coals. And to devote $100,000 to the detection of countermeasures is even more perverted. I'll let you come watch me for free. Better yet, I'll come up to DC and teach you all about countermeasures for $200 a day and expenses. It should take me about a week.”

“I am enclosing the VHS tapes of CBS NIGHTWATCH, and CBS 60 MINUTES, along with a copy of my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH. Please make copies of the tape and enclosed written material a part of the final report to Congress, and also make them available to the public. If the government persists in its present course of expanding the polygraph thread, this information will become even more popular than it already is." Signed Doug Williams

Shortly after that meeting at the OTA, I received a phone call from Dr. Gordon H Barland who identified himself as a polygraph examiner and instructor at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.

Barland worked at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), where he taught a course on “countermeasures”, designed specifically to deal with my Sting Technique. Based on the information in my manual, he developed a 40 hour course on polygraph countermeasures and how to detect them.

He actually told me he was developing this course for the polygraph institute that would teach polygraph examiners how to determine when a person was using my sting technique. He asked if they could use my manual in his "countermeasures course". He asked if he could get a discount for a “bulk purchase”. I told him he could distribute copies of my manual for free to all the polygraph operators in the government and to tell them that I dared them to prove to me that they could tell when anyone was using my technique to beat them. I told him that there was no way anyone could determine whether or not a person was using my technique because all I did was teach people how to produce a truthful chart. I told him that the reason I wrote a manual in the first place was not to teach people how to beat the polygraph; I was trying to demonstrate how ridiculous it was to refer to it as a "lie detector". However because telling the truth only worked about 50% of the time, it was often necessary for person to learn how to use my technique in order to pass. So I gave Dr. Barland permission to use my manual as his textbook in his "countermeasures course". All I asked in return was that if he was able to detect when someone was using my technique that he would offer me proof of this. No proof was ever offered – I’m sure the reason was because they were never able to detect anyone using so-called “countermeasures”.

What follows is an excerpt from a post Dr. Barland made on a public forum concerning this:

“I’m here to vouch for Doug’s bona fides. I have long believed that his primary motivation in publishing the manual is that he believes the polygraph does more harm than good, and that he is not a Judas selling out his former profession for filthy lucre. I have talked with Doug on the phone many times, and, with only one exception, he has always been courteous and helpful. When I was developing a 40-hour countermeasure course at what was then the DOD Polygraph Institute, I wanted to include Doug’s manual in the handout material for the examiners. I called Doug to see if I could negotiate a quantity discount rate, as I wanted to distribute several hundred copies within the Federal polygraph community. As soon as I explained that I wanted to use his manual as part of the curriculum, he immediately and unhesitatingly gave me permission to download the manual, reproduce it, and distribute it to every Federal examiner without any fee whatsoever. I sent him a written agreement for that, which he promptly signed and returned. I was deeply impressed. If he were in it for the money, he would never have made that very generous offer. Even a small fee, multiplied by the hundreds of Federal examiners, would have been a considerable sum. I am convinced that he is acting primarily out of moral convictions rather than greed. And just for the record, although many Federal examiners question Doug’s loyalty to America, I have never doubted his patriotism. I respect him for serving honorably in a position of great trust. Just thought I’d add my two cents. Peace Gordon H. Barland”. I always had the opinion that Gordon thought he was playing me – acting like he was my friend, when all he wanted to do was to keep tabs on what I was doing and use my manual as his textbook. I played along with him for years because I wanted to prove that I could teach people how to pass the polygraph test and that it would be impossible for them to determine that I had. One of the weapons I used against them was their own paranoia – most polygraph operators now routinely accuse people of using countermeasures because they are so paranoid they think I have trained everyone they test! That makes them even less confident in the polygraph as a “lie detector” and it proves my case against them. By making these accusations, they are, in fact, admitting that the polygraph doesn’t work and that it can be easily manipulated.

Later, in 1999, the Department of Energy held public hearings on its polygraph policy because of a proposal by the Energy Department to give polygraph tests to employees at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I had given the employees at the National Laboratory permission to distribute free copies of my manual to everyone threatened with the polygraph. Dr Barland spoke at one of these hearings and attempted to convince his audience of scientists and engineers that nowadays, polygraph operators are able to detect countermeasures such as those found in my manual “HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH”. He said, "We now are training our examiners how to detect people who are trying to manipulate their results, and we have learned a lot about how people go about doing that. Earlier this year we published a case where Doug Williams had given information to a person on how to beat the polygraph, but he was not successful."But what Dr. Barland conveniently forgot to mention was that the person "was not successful" because he admitted to having employed polygraph countermeasures! Had he not made this admission, he would have "passed." Dr. Barland had been using my manual and training people to detect the "countermeasures" that I teach in the sting technique, and the only proof he could offer that any polygraph operator was able to do this was the one lame brained idiot who admitted using my manual to pass his test. That's not much proof to show after ten years work.

The fact is, no one at DoDPI has come up with a reliable method for detecting these so-called "countermeasures", and Dr. Barland's misleading statement before an audience of top-notch atomic scientists and engineers is proof of the polygraph community's consternation over the fact that they have never been able to catch anyone using my technique. If they had any proof, they would certainly have offered it by now.

Chapter 13 – I WIN – YOU LOSE

For the next two years I continued my crusade against the polygraph. I was a regular on many radio talk shows, and was asked to appear and give my views about the lie detector every time it was in the news. I also continued putting on seminars and at every meeting, and on every television and radio show, I continued urging people to contact representatives in the House and Senate to demand passage of the EPPA. I would always tell them to request a copy of my manual when they called or wrote their representatives.

While the polygraph was used almost exclusively in the United States, the tentacles of this insidious industry were beginning to invade other countries. In 1984 the polygraph firm by the name of Polygraph Security Services set up shop in the UK and began trying to sell their services. Later in about 1987, the British government was considering the use of the polygraph in criminal cases and in screening personnel in the intelligence and security agencies. Margaret Thatcher's government commissioned a study of the validity of the polygraph prior to implementing its use in the government.

One day, I was in my office at the church and I received a call from a man who identified himself as John Baer. He told me that he was from Scotland Yard, and that he had been sent by the British government to interview me and have me train him in the use of countermeasures. He asked if I would be kind enough to meet him in Oklahoma City and give him an interview and train him in the sting technique. He had obviously done his homework; he told me that he had read many articles about me, and that he had read the transcript of my testimony in Congress. He also told me that he had watched the tapes of NIGHTWATCH and 60 MINUTES.

I had planned on going to Oklahoma City some time that week to visit with the head of the ACLU and get an update on the status of the legislation in the House and Senate. I told him that I would be happy to meet him and give him all the information and training he requested. The following day I met with him in his hotel room in Oklahoma City where I visited with him for a couple of hours, hooked him up to my polygraph instrument and demonstrated how easy it was to learn to control the polygraph test results.

Mr. Baer told me that he was involved in a study being conducted by the British government to study the effect of countermeasures on the validity of the polygraph as a lie detector. He said the study was commissioned by his government to consider the feasibility of polygraph screening. Mr. Baer told me that his report to Dr. A. B. Levey, the director of the study, would be to recommend that the polygraph not be used. He told me that I had convinced him that the polygraph was not suitable as a device to be used in security service screening or in criminal investigations.

The results of the study conducted by Dr. Levey were released in a report in 1988, and the study found that, "it is well established that countermeasures, i.e. means of producing a misleading result in order to escape detection, can easily be learned and that the capability for escaping detection is extremely high." The report pointed out that the accuracy figures quoted by; "responsible leaders of the polygraph profession" were much higher than those obtained in the laboratory by objective researchers. The report continued, "Indeed, they are impossibly high given the known limitations on the reliability of psycho physiological measure. In fact there is a strong probability that these inflated values represent a mixture of a high proportion of self deception and a low proportion of simple chicanery." The report also found that polygraph screening was biased against a truthful person resulting in, "the erroneous exclusion of suitable applicants and the false accusations of those already in employment." The report concluded that the polygraph technique had, "no scientifically acceptable theory at its base and it is applied to the detection of low base rate frequencies in an area such as the identification of honesty which is itself ill understood." The following is an excerpt from the House of Commons Hansard debates of December 8, 1988: "Dr. Levey’s conclusion from the literature is that the polygraph is probably incapable of achieving a high level of accuracy and reliability when used for screening purposes and, moreover, that individuals trained in the use of countermeasures would have a good chance of escaping detection.”

How ironic that the simple demonstration and the information I gave to the investigator were all that was necessary to prevent the use of the polygraph in the UK. By simply informing them of the facts about its lack of validity and the false premise upon which it is based, I was able to convince them that the polygraph was not reliable and should not be used. But in the United States, I had been working for years and was not even close to slowing down the use of the polygraph, let alone stopping it. As a matter of fact, it was quite the reverse; the use of the polygraph was being expanded both in government and private industry.

But, finally one day all my efforts were rewarded. I remember it was on a Monday in late June, June 27th, 1988 to be exact, and I was lying on the couch watching the CBS evening news, when the announcement was made. It was a short report, simply stating that the president had signed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act into law. The report went on to give a short description of the protections the law would provide to employees in private industry. They reported that this law would in effect outlaw all polygraph examinations on employees. It was short and simple, but it had a profound effect on me. I did not stand up and cheer, I don't think I even smiled; I was just overcome with a feeling, the likes of which I had never experienced before. I felt as though I was being lifted off the couch, almost like I was floating in the air, and I could literally feel waves of relief and joy cascading all through me. It was as if all the millions of victims of this insidious machine were suddenly in one place holding me above their heads; all of them laughing, crying, and expressing their profound gratitude for all my efforts on their behalf. This description does not even begin to describe what I was experiencing at that moment. It was unlike anything I had ever experienced before or since.

I laid there for a minute and let it all soak in. I could scarcely believe what I was hearing. Finally, success! After awhile my mind drifted back to my conversation with Larry Talley when I told him I was going to put him out of business. It was only then that I began to grin and congratulate myself. I was delighted to think about all the obnoxious, overbearing assholes in the polygraph business that would soon be looking for another job. Victor Kaufman, president of New York Lie Detection Laboratories was quoted as saying that the new law would, "knockout about 98% of our polygraph business". I wondered how many polygraph firms would go under. I waited a week to find the answer to that question. The only way to know would be to call them up and ask. So after about a week, I began thumbing through the Oklahoma City Yellow Pages under polygraph section. Well over half of the polygraph firms I called that week had their phones disconnected. I derived a great deal of satisfaction out of hearing the little recorded neeewawneee sound, with the operator saying, "I'm sorry, the number you have reached is no longer in service."

If you were to go back in time and compare the number of polygraph firms listed in Yellow Pages in 1988 with those listed in 1989, you would see that well over three fourths of them had disappeared. I know this because I did the research myself. Back then, the public library had copies of the Yellow Pages from all the major cities in the United States. And in 1989 I went to the library and compared the listings for polygraph between 1987 and 1989. By my calculations based on the number of listings for polygraph firms that had disappeared in the period of one year, I was able to calculate that I had helped to put over seven thousand polygraph operators out of business. And more importantly, I was instrumental in putting a stop to the bullying and abuse of over two million people. I was delighted!

A few weeks after the EPPA was signed by President Reagan, I got a call from the producer of a talk radio show on KTOK in Oklahoma City. She asked if I would be a guest on a live talk show that would be broadcast from the Oklahoma City lawn and garden show at the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds. She told me that the host who I knew and had been interviewed by in the past would be concentrating on the provisions of the EPPA and discussing what protections it would give to people. I told her I would be delighted to be a guest, especially since it was on KTOK because they were the first radio station to interview me when I started my crusade against the polygraph in 1979. She told me when to come to the Fairgrounds, where to go when I got there and that she would be there to meet me when I arrived.

When I arrived at the Fairgrounds I found that the KTOK radio program was being broadcast from a small stage in the middle of a large building in the Fairgrounds complex. I was greeted by the producer, and invited onstage where I shook hands with the host. The host motioned to Shirley Berry, head of the Oklahoma ACLU, who was standing off to the side. He invited Shirley up on stage and she gave me a big hug. "Don't be mad now Doug, I'm the one who put them up to this." I ask her what she was talking about and she told me that I was going to be the recipient of an award and that she was going to announce the details on today's broadcast. She told me that I was also going to be the guest of honor at the ACLU’s annual awards banquet and that I would be given the Volunteer Advocate award at the banquet, and that I was, in her opinion, the one person most responsible for the passage of the EPPA. The host the producer and Shirley were all smiles, and I was embarrassed, proud, and humbled and I told them as much.

When the show started, Shirley went on and on about all I had done to get the EPPA passed. She went into great detail about all the seminars that I had presented, all the books I had distributed, and all of the television shows that I had been on with particular emphasis on the CBS 60 MINUTES program which she said had been the primary piece of evidence that had helped to destroy the credibility of the polygraph industry. The radio show host then asked me to outline the provisions of the EPPA, and I gave a quick rundown basically concluding that it outlawed the use of all polygraph examinations in the private sector. The host then opened up the phone lines to accept calls from listeners and the producer motioned to me that the lines were already full. For the next forty five minutes, I listened to person after person relate the problems that they had had with polygraph operators and how they dreaded the polygraph examinations that they were continually forced to submit to. Their thanks to me for my efforts were effusive and I was beginning to get embarrassed; because they went on and on about how grateful they were to me for what I had done.

I still had my paranoid cop/crusader radar going full blast all the time. I was always very aware of my surroundings and suspicious of the people around me. I noticed that when the program first started people were milling about looking at the various displays in the home and garden show, and that no one was paying particular attention to what was going on at the KTOK broadcast stage. But as the program progressed, there were more and more people gathering around the stage, and I noticed that these people were different than the ones who were at the show when the broadcast began. Many of them were dressed in route salesman and retail store clerks uniforms. And this group was getting larger and larger as the broadcast went on. When the show was finally over, I thanked the host, told the producer and Shirley goodbye, and began making my way to the exit. I barely got off the stage before I was stopped by the people who had surrounded it. They very humbly and quietly shook my hand, some hugged me, and all them thanked me for what I had done. They told me what a relief it was not to have to submit to the intimidation and humiliation of polygraph examinations. It literally took me over thirty minutes to go the hundred feet or so to the exit. When I finally made it outside, I looked around and saw that all the streets surrounding the Fairgrounds building had been blocked by cars and scores of various kinds of delivery trucks. Apparently these people had been listening to the radio and had gone out of their way to come and offer their thanks for all my efforts on their behalf. Aside from the $200 I got for being a panel member with the OTA, I had not made any money from my crusade which had taken almost ten years. But no amount of money could give me the feeling that I had at that moment. The sincere gratitude and obvious affection I had received from these honest hard-working people was worth millions of dollars

I was very relieved and very happy to have succeeded in my goal to outlaw the use of the polygraph in private industry. And, for the first time in ten years, I was no longer obsessed with my crusade. While there were exemptions in the EPPA that would allow for government employees, government contractors, police and fire departments to continue to use a polygraph to screen applicants and as a periodic test for security clearances; I was certain that the people in the federal, state, and local government would soon follow the example of those in private industry and rebel against the use of the polygraph and that ultimately steps would be taken to assure the polygraph would no longer be used for any purpose. After all I had completely demolished the myth that the polygraph had any accuracy or validity as a "lie detector"; and the polygraph industry could not offer any proof that it was. I felt certain that this last vestige of witchcraft, and the con men that perpetuated this scam would be forced into exile and that the polygraph industry would simply fade away.

Chapter 14 – A WELL DESERVED VACATION

I was completely mentally exhausted, and I was tired of all the media attention. I was somewhat famous, or infamous, depending on which side of the issue you are on and I no longer needed the publicity and all that came with it; both the good and the bad. I knew I had made many enemies during my crusade, and I knew that at least a few of the seven thousand polygraph operators I had put out of business would like to exact some revenge. I was sick of the fight and I just wanted to disappear for a while; it seemed to me that I would feel the most secure if no one knew where I was. I had achieved my goal, but it had taken its toll; I was worn out by ten years of hectic activity and my mental and emotional reserves were depleted by the expenditure of all the manic energy that achievement had required. I had to take a break; I wanted to be anonymous.

I had saved much of the salary I earned as a local pastor in the Methodist Church. I had also accumulated a small amount of money in my retirement account. I resigned my position, closed out my retirement account, took some of my savings and bought a very nice used Class C motor home. It was fully equipped with its own generator and was in excellent condition. I rigged it up with a tow bar so I could pull my little Mazda hatchback behind it, and I headed south to Galveston, Texas.

During my youth, I had spent many happy summers on the Bolivar Peninsula beach and across the bay in Galveston, Texas. As I drove south from Oklahoma to Galveston I could feel the weight of the obsessive crusade literally fall off of my shoulders. When I arrived in Galveston, I parked my motor home in a rundown trailer park right on Seawall Boulevard. I rented a space closest to the Gulf of Mexico. I built a deck on stilts, with stairs going up to the top. I put a beach chair, a large umbrella, and a nice propane barbeque grill on the deck where I could sit, soak up the sun, feel the sea breeze and watch the beach just across the street. It was a sweet set up. My only goal was to become an anonymous, beach bum; a goal I soon succeeded in achieving. When money ran short, I worked a few weeks until I had saved up enough to take off again; and I only needed to make enough to keep myself supplied with ample amounts of Budweiser. My expenses were minimal. My lot rent was only $100 a month, and that included electricity, water and sewer. I did not owe anyone any money and as someone once said, a single man with no debtors can easily disappear. And that is exactly what I did; I disappeared. For many months, no one on earth knew exactly where I was, and that was a great comfort to me. I had made a lot of enemies and I was happy to be somewhere where I could be invisible.

Most days, my biggest decisions were whether to set on my deck drinking beer, watching the tourists on the beach, or whether to exert the effort walk up the seawall to a dive called the Poop Deck. The Poop Deck was my favorite hangout. It had a deck outside overlooking the seawall and the beach where I could drink a few beers and talk to Marie, the bartender, and watch the beach bunnies in their bikinis. I discovered I had a real aptitude as a beach bum, and it was a lifestyle I thoroughly enjoyed for quite a while. I seldom, if ever thought, about the polygraph industry or anything else of any real importance for that matter. I went months without reading a newspaper, or watching the news on TV, or even listening to a radio. As the old song said, I had become comfortably numb.

After a few years, I got bored – yes it is possible to get tired of doing nothing. And by now I had descended into abject poverty. I discovered that money is not important unless you have absolutely none; then it becomes very important. I had not maintained my motor home at all, and I was so close to the gulf that on most mornings the sea breeze would cover it with salty residue; often there was actually sea foam sitting on the hood. It had been almost completely devoured by rust and I had not even started the engine in over five years, so it was basically totaled out. I didn't even own a car, I had traded my little Mazda for a motorcycle and that had been my mode of transportation around the island for about four years. I figured it was time to rejoin the human/rat race before I got so far down I would never be able to recover. Being a beach bum is okay when you are young but it didn't seem like a very good way to grow old.

I was fifty years old, flat broke, and had so few possessions that I could put everything I owned in a box, which I tied it to the back of my motorcycle and took off for Oklahoma. Aside from a pair of blue jeans and a couple of shirts, the only things in that box were video tapes, and the paperwork that I had generated working on my crusade to outlaw the use of the polygraph. I had letters from Congressmen, professors, 60 MINUTES producer Gail Eisen, a few copies of my manual HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, and numerous other things such as newspaper and magazine articles etc.

Chapter 15 – UNFINISHED BUSINESS

When I arrived in Oklahoma, I called my brother Mike who was a very successful businessman in Chickasha Oklahoma. He owned a chemical company and I asked him if he could use any help. He told me that he could definitely give me a job and for me to come on up ASAP. It was late in 1995 when I returned to Oklahoma and began working with my brother. In the early part of 1996 we were putting together a website for his business on something called the Internet. This was all new and very foreign to me, but the more I learned about the Internet, the more I began to see how it could be a very useful tool. I wished many times that I had had a way to communicate to millions of people so easily when I was working on my crusade years before.

One day when my brother Mike and I were working with the website designer, Mike asked me if I still had a copy of my manual. I told him that I did and he suggested that I set up my own website and sell copies over the Internet. I told him that it would be a good idea to put it on the Internet, but that I would probably just let people have it for free. Mike looked at me like I was crazy. “Give it away?” he yelled as his face reddened, “Are you nuts? You gave it away, and worked for nothing for over ten years, and I will not allow you to do that again! You will sell it, and you will charge as much as you can possibly get for it! That is the only way I will help you set up your own website!”

I reluctantly agreed with Mike, but I still wasn’t sure if there was any demand for my manual; and I certainly didn’t think anyone would pay me for it. But, I began doing some research to see how much the polygraph was being used. Even then, the Internet was a great research tool and I quickly found that millions of people applying for jobs with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as applicants for state and local police departments were required to submit to pre-employment polygraph examinations. I also discovered that many thousands of government employees and government contractors also had to submit to polygraph examinations in order to keep their security clearance. The polygraph industry was making the most of the loopholes in the EPPA, and the number of polygraph tests had increased in some areas – especially the federal government. Considering this, I concluded there could easily be a great demand for my manual. It was obvious that the polygraph had not faded into oblivion as I had thought it might.

So began the arduous task of building a website and starting an Internet business. It was quite a learning curve for me; there had been many technical advances during the years that I had been living the life of a carefree beach bum. I had to learn what a website was, how to register a domain name, and I had to figure out how to sell the manual on the Internet. In late 1995 and early 1996 there were quite a few websites already on the Internet but there were not any mechanisms, at least that I could find, that were set up to help me sell what later became known as e-books. As a matter of fact when I finally got my website up and running so that I could accept a person's credit card to buy the manual online, and download it from my website, I could not find anyone else that was doing that. There may have been some, but in January of 1996, I certainly couldn't find them. It took me literally weeks to get a very crude website built, and even more time to get my local bank to help me find a credit card processing company that would process my customer’s credit cards online, and allow a one-time download of my manual. I had to pay a programmer to write a program to help me set up the mechanism on my website to process a credit card and then give access to the manual.

Finally in March of 1996, my website, www.polygraph.com, was launched. My brother Mike had loaned me the money to get the process started and so far I had invested approximately $5000. For that loan, and for the use of his office to run my business, I gave my brother 40% of all my sales for four years. In the first three weeks, I sold enough manuals at $47.95 each, to repay the loan.

I still worked managing the day-to-day operations of my brother’s chemical business while at the same time answering phone calls and e-mails from people who had purchased my manual. I offered free consultation to anyone who purchased the manual and I began selling more and more manuals each month. This was a new experience for me; not only was I once again fighting the polygraph industry, and helping people pass their polygraph examinations, but for the first time I was actually getting paid to do it. And I was getting paid well; from 1996 to 2000, I had gross sales of close to $200,000 a year.

In 1997, I met and married Kathy, a wonderful woman, who was and is a great help and encouragement to me. I began to realize how nice it was to have a normal life; that was something I had never really had before. It was good to have a family, a nice house, a great income, and still be able carry on my crusade against the polygraph industry.

All was not all sweetness and light, however, when it came to my website; since I had put my phone number on the World Wide Web, I was immediately inundated with phone calls from irate polygraph operators. They seemed to be very happy to have a toll-free number they could use to harass and threaten me; and they did so with excruciating frequency.

But I also got thousands of calls from people excited about having the opportunity to educate themselves on how to pass the polygraph. I often revised and updated my manual, and I asked people who used it to pass their tests to report back to me about how well it worked, and what the test was like; they would tell me what questions were asked and they gave me a great deal of information about how every type of test was now being administered. It was a great way for me to research all of the changes in the polygraph industry that had occurred in the intervening years, (and I still use information from my customers to keep my manual up to date). I was able to compile a list of all the questions that the various agencies used in their pre-employment polygraph examinations as well as those used by the intelligence services in the government for what was called lifestyle and security clearance polygraph examinations. With every bit of information I received, I continually updated my manual to provide my customers with the most accurate information about the state of current polygraph testing. The Internet was a wonderful tool and it made the education phase of my three-pronged attack against the polygraph industry much easier than it had ever been. I could reach millions of people and never leave my office. At its peak of popularity, my website is www.polygraph.com regularly received over 30,000 hits every day. This went on for about four years from 1996 to 2000.

In 2000, a few other websites appeared on the Internet and began offering knockoffs of my manual. They would simply paraphrase an old copy, and put up their own website; sometimes selling the manual at a cut rate and sometimes giving it away to increase traffic to their site. While this irritated me because it cut my profits; more importantly, it confused people because there were so many new websites offering this information that I got lost in the crowd. The authors of the manuals on these new websites all had one thing in common; none of them had any expertise, although many claimed that they did. All they succeeded in doing was to cast doubt on my expertise and cause many people to wonder if I could actually help them pass their polygraph tests. The proliferation of all these new websites did help in one small way; it gave the polygraph industry more targets to attack. I was no longer the only one out there teaching people how to beat the polygraph; so the polygraph industry had more than just me to worry about. But I was, and still am, the only one brave or stupid enough to put my phone number on my website; so I continue to be threatened and harassed by angry polygraph operators.

The litigation phase of my three-pronged attack was also greatly enhanced by the Internet. I put the entire EPPA law on my website; and I explained that this law outlawed the use of the polygraph for most of the people in private industry. I invite visitors to my website to read the EPPA, and to contact me if their employers violated any of the provisions of this law. Many called and e-mailed me, and they continue to do so. I always encourage them file a lawsuit; and many of these lawsuits result in the substantial monetary damage awards. I am also often used as an expert witness in cases where the polygraph test is at issue, simply because I am still the only licensed polygraph expert that will actually tell the truth about the lack of reliability of the so-called lie detector. Many times I am not even asked to testify; I often get calls and e-mail from attorneys asking me how to question and cross-examine polygraph operators. I am always happy to help; and I give them a complete rundown about how the polygraph works, how the charts are scored, what constitutes a truthful chart, and what questions to ask polygraph examiners about all the intricacies of the polygraph test. I often send them free copies of my manual and offer to help them formulate questions for depositions and cross examination of polygraph operator’s court testimony. I was, and still am, frequently called as an expert witness in court cases, both civil and criminal, and in many arbitration hearings where police or other government employees were fired or disciplined because of refusing or failing a polygraph test. The last time I testified was as an expert witness in a federal arbitration hearing a few months ago. Often, attorneys tell me that simply listing my name as a prospective expert witness causes the other side to settle the case without even going to court or to arbitration.

There was one very significant event on the litigation front in 1998, when the US Supreme Court ruled that because there was no scientific consensus on the reliability of polygraphs as instruments for establishing the truth, the results of polygraph testing could not be admitted into evidence. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing the majority opinion for the court, said:

...the overall accuracy rate from laboratory studies involving the common "control question technique" polygraph tests assess truthfulness significantly less accurately – that scientific field studies suggest the accuracy rate of the "control question technique" polygraph is "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin," that is, 50 percent.

I was delighted that the US Supreme Court came to this conclusion, and I took a great deal of pride in the fact that in their written decision they made the statement that the accuracy rate is "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin". My pride in hearing that statement stems from the fact that those were the exact same words I had used in my manual and my testimony in many court cases. This is a direct quote from my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, "I have the dubious distinction of being the only licensed polygraphist to ever tell the truth about the so called ‘lie detector’. And the truth is, the polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin in determining whether a person is telling the truth or lying". I wrote these words and had often used them in radio and television interviews in the many years prior to this Supreme Court decision, and to my knowledge those words had never been used to describe the lack of accuracy of a polygraph examination until I used them in a revised copy of my manual. I took it as nod and a wink; a form of acknowledgment from the Supreme Court of my fight against the polygraph industry. One thing was certain, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with my assessment of the lack of validity of the polygraph as a “lie detector”; and his use of my words to describe the lack of validity of the polygraph as a lie detector, was either a direct quote from my manual, or a remarkably coincidental choice of words. It is ironic that the federal government was fighting against the introduction of polygraph results as evidence, while at the same time using it extensively on their own employees. Part of the government's argument against the polygraph was, "even if the basic debate about the reliability of polygraph technology itself were resolved, however, there would still be controversy over the efficacy of countermeasures, or deliberately adopted strategies that a polygraph examinee can employee to provoke physiological responses that will obscure accurate readings and thus ‘fool’ the polygraph machine and examiner". You would think that since the government argued that the polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin, their admission that I could teach people how to fool the machine and beat the test, and that it should therefore not be admitted into evidence, that they would stop using it. But that was not what happened; instead they actually increased the use of this admittedly inaccurate and unreliable instrument on their own employees.

So, in spite of all the evidence against it, the polygraph industry is alive and well, and the fight against polygraph abuse is still far from over. After my website was launched, I immediately began getting hundreds of calls and e-mails from people telling me horror stories about their polygraph experience. I was again reminded about how much the polygraph industry had taken advantage of the loopholes in the EPPA, and I actually felt a twinge of guilt for dropping out of the fight and indulging myself in the beach bum lifestyle for all those years. It seemed to me as though the polygraph industry was able to rehabilitate its image and continue to perpetuate the myth of lie detection much easier without me continually pointing out that their industry was based on a faulty premise and that "lie detection" was nothing but junk science; the polygraph industry took advantage of the fact that I was no longer educating the public by my appearances on radio and television and my many debates with polygraph operators about the validity of the polygraph. I really thought that after the passage of the EPPA, there would a drastic decrease in the use of the polygraph and that it would soon disappear. But that was not the case; the polygraph industry was making a big come back. They had not seen nor heard from me in many years and that had allowed them to grow unchecked by my incessant criticism and debate. That, coupled with the fact that my manual was no longer readily available to help people prepare for their polygraph test, gave them a free hand to do as they pleased. I felt guilty because I had left people at the mercy of these abusive and intimidating scam artists.

Chapter 16 – BACK IN THE FIGHT

It is true that during the years I was off playing beach bum, the polygraph industry certainly did increase use of the polygraph in the government, and their abuse and intimidation of their victims became even more intense. But when it came to light that CIA agent Aldrich Ames had passed two polygraph tests while at the same time spying for the Russians, the embarrassment caused by that obvious failure made the polygraph industry even more determined to restore their credibility. The Ames fiasco came to light in 1994 and resulted in many criticisms of the CIA polygraph operation. It was widely reported that polygraph tests had never caught even one spy, and that there were many other spies who in the past had passed a polygraph while they were spying. The news media made a big deal out of pointing out that others had done the same thing as Aldrich Ames; passed their polygraph tests while working actively as spies. Such long forgotten names were brought up such as Karl Koecher, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo; all spies who had passed polygraph examinations even though they were lying. These embarrassing stories did not have the result you might expect; one would think that in light of this obvious failure of the polygraph to detect lies and catch spies, that the government would abandon the use of this worthless instrument. But quite the opposite happened; the CIA actually increased the use of the polygraph instrument and the polygraph examinations became even more abusive, intrusive, and intimidating. Instead of admitting that the polygraph was worse than useless, that it was dangerous to rely on it for our national security, that many spies had lied and passed it easily, and that never in the history of the CIA or any intelligence service had the polygraph examination ever uncovered even one spy; they actually expanded the use of their beloved “lie detector”. It seems that the Nixon rationale for using a lie detector is still alive and well in the government. Nixon once said, “I don't know anything about the polygraphs, I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people… And that's why I like to use them".

I have received many calls and e-mails from victims who literally had the hell scared out of them by the “lie detector”. And it was obvious that the polygraph examination was becoming a much more intrusive and intimidating experience. It was as though the polygraph operators believed that the exemptions in the EPPA granted to the government and state and local law enforcement gave them carte blanche to do anything they felt like doing during the administration of a polygraph examination. Since 1996, I have received literally thousands of phone calls and e-mails from government employees, both men and women, telling me that since the embarrassment of the polygraph industry caused by the Aldrich Ames scandal in 1994, the government decided that all agency staff members would have to take a polygraph at least once every five years. Some CIA employees told me that case officers (spies) were required to take it more often than that; some were tested every six months. And in 2001, after the FBI discovered that one of their agents, Robert Hanssen, had been an active spy for many years, they too began using the polygraph to test active agents as well as prospective employees. The use of the polygraph was becoming rampant in the federal government as well as state and local governments. The test was used for pre-employment screening, and periodic security checks in the federal government and for pre-employment screening and internal investigations in state and local police departments. Again there were thousands of polygraph tests being administered every year. Some estimate that today there are over five million people who are under the threat of polygraph examinations. Now, even civilian contractors who work in companies that have contracts with the government requiring security clearances must submit to pre-employment polygraph testing as well as periodic "lifestyle" polygraph examinations.

In their e-mails and phone calls to me, most people describe their polygraph examinations as the most humiliating intimidating and intrusive things that have ever happened to them. They report that they were asked about such things as their sex life, and they were asked to go into detail, even about what kind of sex they had, how often, their favorite positions, etc. Many government employees from the CIA and other agencies have simply resigned rather than subject themselves to this abuse by the tactics used by many of these government polygraph operators. It is reported that CIA alone lost more than 25% of their case officers, during on 18 month period between 1995 and 1996; that was more than had resigned over the previous 10 year period. One report noted that "protest from active officers about the lie detector tests are having a marked negative impact, and CIA recruiters are finding it hard to meet their targets". The FBI and the Secret Service, as well as every other intelligence and law enforcement service in the federal government now use polygraph examinations as a condition of employment. These agencies all report that over 60% of their applicants are denied employment based solely results of a failed polygraph examination. Many people tell me that the polygraph test is destroying morale and that hundreds of good employees are leaving these agencies or never applying at all because they do not want to be subjected to this constant ritual of abuse, and the intrusive humiliating aspects of the polygraph examination. In short the employees who are subjected to increasingly intense polygraph tests are angry. That anger, coupled with their need to protect themselves, probably accounted for the vast number of manuals I continue to sell.

Since 1996, I have appeared on numerous national radio and television programs, and have been interviewed by scores of magazines and newspapers. I am still contacted on a regular basis by radio and television for interviews on the polygraph. This happens much more often than before because it is so simple for the news media to contact me. And www.polygraph.com was the first website of its kind ever on the Internet. It is just like old times, I'm still crusading against the polygraph industry, except this time I am making a living doing it. I have been and continue to be a guest on many radio and television shows and I continue to sell quite a few manuals. Since 1996, I have been featured on most of the major news programs on all of the major television and cable networks, including CBS, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS, CNN NEWS, FOX NETWORK’S EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN, NBC DATELINE, FOX NEWS, CNN NEWS STAND, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL, BBC, TLC, & SHOWTIME PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT! You can watch these videos by going to my website www.polygraph.com and clicking on MEDIA CLIPS. I have been written about in over one hundred newspaper and magazine articles, thousands of blogs, been interviewed by hundreds of local TV news and talk shows, and personally appeared on over five hundred radio talk shows.

In 2000, the demands on my time for interviews and the running of my internet business made my brother Mike and I conclude that we should discontinue our business arrangement. I trained a new manager for Mike’s business, and Kathy and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma where I set up shop running my website from the comfort of the study in my new home.

Now that I have more time, I have added a new dimension to my business; offering personal polygraph test preparation training. I rented an office in an office building near the University of Oklahoma on University Boulevard and furnished it with a desk and chair for me and a large armchair for my students. I decorated the office with letters from 60 MINUTES, various attorneys, university professors, and members of Congress. I also had my certificate from the National Training Center of Lie Detection certifying me as an expert polygraphist, a copy of my diploma from Oklahoma City University, framed and placed on the walls of my office. You can see my polygraph preparation training room by going to www.polygraph.com and click on the button after the section telling about my personal one-on-one training.

This personal polygraph test preparation training consists of bringing people into my office and administering an actual polygraph test on them; in this case it is called a practice test. I tailor the questions to suit their situation, and run three separate tests making sure that they are able to always produce a perfect truthful polygraph chart. I always show them their polygraph charts and show them how they are able to control every tracing at will. In 2000 and I started off with my old analog polygraph, and in 2003, I updated my equipment and started using a computerized polygraph instrument. I was still training people to tighten their anal sphincter muscle in order to produce a reaction in the cardio tracings, but the companies manufacturing polygraph instrument started selling what they called a motion sensor pad that they placed in the seat of the subjects chair and advertised it as being able to detect physical "countermeasures". I always thought they should have given me a royalty payment for each one of those they sold since I was the one who invented the sting technique which advocated the use of the anal sphincter muscle to produce a reaction.

But, as usual, I was able to adapt my training technique to overcome any attempts by the polygraph industry to detect what they referred to as "countermeasures". I simply changed the instructions in my manual to encourage people to use mental imagery instead of physically manipulating a reaction. And in order to test the effectiveness of mental imagery in producing reactions in response to control questions and/or preventing reactions to relevant questions, I purchased the new computerized polygraph instrument equipped with the motion sensor pad and the latest scoring software. When I tested people using just mental imagery, I found that it worked very well. If people used it as I instructed them to do in the revised manual; that is to think calm relaxing thoughts and imagine being in a peaceful place when answering a relevant question, and to think of a frightening scenario when answering the known lie control questions.

For the past few years, I have used a form of hypnosis in my one-on-one training. I call it the enhanced mental imagery training. I have been studying hypnosis for several years and have developed a hypnosis script which is simply a set of instructions or suggestions which I communicate to my student during hypnosis to direct their subconscious mind so that they can bring about the desired effect; which is simply the production of a truthful chart when they take their polygraph test. I train them to let their subconscious mind take over and take them to a peaceful place when they answer a relevant question. And then all I have to do is to have them imagine a frightening scene, or remember a traumatic experience from their past when they answer a control question. My training technique sounds very simple and it is, but only because I have worked very hard to make it so. Albert Einstein once said, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself”. And I can explain my technique to a six year old because I understand it – I ought to understand it, I invented it! I have recently upgraded my polygraph instrument and now have the newest computerized version with all the bells and whistles. And when you come for your training I guarantee you will produce three perfect truthful charts before you leave my office.

Chapter 17 – SAME OLD SNAKE OIL – DIFFERENT BOTTLE

Since I renewed my anti-polygraph crusade in 1996, with the establishment of polygraph.com, I have been on numerous national television shows, testified in scores of civil and criminal court cases, and many arbitration hearings where police officers or federal employees were fired for either failing or refusing to take polygraph examinations. But these days, I testify mostly in police arbitration hearings where police officers have been fired for either refusing to take a polygraph examination or for failing one. These arbitration hearings are often very heated and inevitably the attorneys for the city cannot present a case for the validity of the polygraph so they always resort to ad hominem personal attacks on my character. What they don't seem to realize is that they are making my case for me when they do this, because the arbitrators are aware that ad hominem attacks are the last resort of a person who can offer no other argument. In every case where I have testified against the polygraph, the results of the polygraph have been disregarded, and the police officer has been reinstated.

I have been debating representatives of the polygraph industry since 1979, and have always been able to win the debates easily because all I have to do is to explain what the polygraph records why it is unreliable as a lie detector because all it is able to record is nervousness, and nervousness does not always equate to deception. But all of the old time polygraph experts now either refuse to debate me, or have retired and are no longer available. So now I am taking on the next generation of polygraph experts.

These new polygraph experts are more difficult to debate because they have attempted to change the terminology used to describe the polygraph operation and have also changed the terminology used to describe how the polygraph charts are scored. They advocate cloaking the faults of the polygraph by using a new form of shady scientific jargon. They suggest that the polygraph industry adopt a new vocabulary; described as, "polygraph terms for the 21st-century”. This, they say is a “vocabulary in common with the related sciences of psychology, physiology, and psychophysiology”. In other words, this new polygrapher knows he cannot debate the validity of the polygraph by accurately describing how it works and the faulty premise upon which it is based, so he has advocated the use of what I describe as a combination of psychobabble, doubletalk, and Orwellian doublespeak which is basically the use of words that deliberately disguise, distort, or even reverse the meaning of words. This “new vocabulary” is described in a paper prepared for the polygraph industry and published by the American Polygraph Association; an abstract of which can be found in the national criminal justice reference service

NCJRS Abstracts Database https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/AbstractDB/

NCJ Number: NCJ 220562

Title: Polygraph Terms for the 21st Century

Journal: Polygraph Volume:36 Issue:3 Dated:2007 Pages:157 to 164

Author(s): Mark Handler ; Raymond Nelson

Publisher URL*: http://www.polygraph.org/

Publication Date: 2007

Pages: 8

Type: Issue overviews

Origin: United States

Language: English

To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242381

This paper explores the phenomena described as “psychological set” and “anti-climax dampening concept” outside the polygraph dictionary for more prudent terms, with the intent to propose a modernization of the language to align it with mainstream terms and concepts.

Abstract: “Psychological set” and other terms such as “GSR”, “control questions” and “stim tests” are idiomatic jargon used within the polygraph profession, and should be discarded in favor of more generally accepted and empirically supported constructs. The expressions “psychological set” and “anti-climax dampening concept” do not convey their meaning in common terms to those outside the polygraph community. This does not mean that these expressions are by definition wrong, but only that the concepts are already captured in more modern language. The term salience is more widely understood in the scientific literature and its use by the polygraph profession will serve to garner more respect than the use of jargon. Salience has the distinct advantage of both explaining the phenomena and having a more universally recognizable meaning. If the polygraph profession is in pursuit of general acceptance, it must be prepared. Salience is an important step in that direction. The polygraph has long been relied upon as a decision support tool, and the science of polygraph testing is best understood in a vocabulary in common with the related sciences of psychology, physiology, and psychophysiology. More courts are recognizing polygraph professionals as experts, and accepting testimony. Adjudicators and others rely on input from examiners when making decisions. This requires the assurance that testimony is based on scientific evidence and scientific theories. This evidence requires the professionals involved in the discipline of forensic psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) to embrace the more commonly accepted vocabularies of the fields of psychology, physiology, and psychophysiology.

This is an example of how polygraph operators are trying to change the names to protect the guilty. In other words they know they cannot prove the validity of the polygraph by using terms that accurately describe what it records so they have decided " to replace the idiomatic jargon used within the polygraph profession with language and constructs that have more in common with other sciences” in other words, as WC Fields once said, "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". This new “language and constructs” idea is simply an example of doublespeak combined with doubletalk; which is defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary as: 1: language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense: 2: inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language. Together they form a new language which is best described as psychobabble.

It is also very difficult to debate these new polygraph experts because they have also devised a radical new scoring system to score polygraph charts called the Monte Carlo Polygraph Empirical Scoring System, which they presented in a paper prepared for the polygraph industry and also published by the American Polygraph Association; an abstract of which can be found in the national criminal justice reference service.

NCJRS Abstracts Database.

NCJ Number: NCJ 236806

Title: Reliability of the Empirical Scoring System with Expert Examiners

Journal: Polygraph Volume:40 Issue:3 Dated:2011 Pages:131 to 139

Author(s): Raymond Nelson ; Benjamin Blalock ; Marty Oelrich ; Barry Cushman

Publisher URL*: http://www.polygraph.org

Publication Date: 2011

Pages: 9

Type: Studies/research reports

Origin: United States

Language: English

Annotation: This study investigated the reliability and accuracy of the Empirical Scoring System (ESS) with experienced examiners.

Abstract: Monte Carlo statistical methods were used to calculate confidence intervals for the reliability and accuracy of the ESS with a cohort of 25 experienced examiners who scored a small sample of 10 confirmed psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD, polygraph) exams that were conducted using the Federal ZCT format. Fleiss kappa showed a substantial agreement between the numerical scores of the study participants (k = .61, .54 to .68) and decision agreement that was significantly better than chance with a mean rate of decision agreement of 95.4 percent, excluding inconclusive results. Bootstrap Monte Carlo methods were used to calculate the accuracy profile and statistical confidence intervals of the ESS scores from the experienced examiners. The authors recommend continued interest in the ESS as an evidence based model for manual test data analysis in field polygraph settings and future research. (Published Abstract)

Main Term(s): Criminology

Index Term(s): Polygraphs ; Polygraph techniques ; Investigative techniques ; Polygraph reliability ; Instrument validation

To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=258826

This is just another example of what Mark Twain meant when he said, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

I recently testified in a case where one of this new generation of polygraph experts was called to testify as to the validity of the polygraph. I testified on behalf of a police officer who was fired for failing a polygraph test. And the polygraph expert, who I will refer to as Mr. BS, (a very appropriate name as you will see when you read his testimony), was the expert called by the city. This new polygraph operator certainly tried to implement the new polygraph terms for the 21st-century. And he seemed very familiar with the Monte Carlo scoring system. I will show you some of BS's testimony so you can see for yourself that the doublespeak, doubletalk and psychobabble these new batch of polygraph experts spew forth is deliberately unintelligible.

You will note that Mr. BS uses terminology from the new scoring system cited above in his testimony when he responds to questions about analyzing the polygraph chart and scoring it either as truthful or deceptive. Here are some examples of Mr. BS's testimony. His testimony will demonstrate what they mean when they say the polygraph profession should use more scientific language, “to garner more respect than the use of idiomatic jargon used within the polygraph profession”. Or to put it more correctly, they will demonstrate what WC Fields meant when he said, "baffle them with bullshit". You will also see a prime example of this convoluted new polygraph scoring system; it is simply more proof that Mark Twain’s old axiom, “figures don't lie, but liars figure”, is absolutely correct. If it weren't so serious a subject, it would be funny.

Please bear in mind when you read the following, that it is simply my version of the testimony. Everything here is a direct quote from one or more lawsuits and arbitration hearings I have testified in recently and in previous years. It is not complete, nor is it drawn from any single court case or hearing. But it is a very good example of what happens in an arbitration hearing or a court case where the results of a polygraph test are at issue. And while it has been amended for reasons of confidentiality for the people involved, and edited to make it more understandable to the average reader; and while it is a compilation of the testimony given by myself and some of the pro-polygraph experts in a number of different hearings, it does realistically capture and depict the true essence of what transpires in the hearings and court cases where I have been called as a polygraph expert to dispute the validity and reliability of the polygraph as a “lie detector”.

Here are some examples of BS's answers to some of the questions posed to him during his testimony. This is near the beginning of his testimony where the city attorney is asking Mr. BS about his research into the validity and accuracy of the polygraph as a lie detector.

Question: Mr. BS, in your research and the papers that you have either published or studied regarding the accuracy of polygraph, how do you determine the accuracy and reliability of the polygraph test as a lie detector? What type of testing method do you use?

Answer: Well, there's different types of research that are done. Some of them are laboratory studies, and some are field studies of actual field investigation cases. More recently I've completed a large analysis of the scientific and statistical analysis of all available published scientific evidence. For instance, this would be the Monte Carlo methods the same kind of research methods that are used in every other field of science. Individual cases used in field polygraph research are confirmed, they are selected based on the availability of confirmation evidence, meaning as for polygraphic evidence, such as physical evidence or some form of evidence outside the polygraph context that either establishes the guilt or hope ability of the examinee or evidence that establishes the guilt or culpability of an alternate suspect. Sometimes the confessions are also you know, the confession of the examinee or the confession of an alternate suspect.

Question: Okay, those are the field studies. What about the laboratory studies that analyze the accuracy of the polygraph?

Answer: Laboratory studies are completed using a variety of scenarios in which participants are randomly assigned to a truthful or deceptive condition and then asked to participate or voluntarily or not to anticipate in a defined scenarios such as a shooting incident, and espionage instrument, a simulated roadside bombing, or a theft incident, or some kind of perhaps an assault incident.

I am sitting in the room waiting for my turn to testify and listening to this bookish, self-important little man, wearing his thick glasses and sporting a scraggly mustache and goatee. I thought, for a moment how much he reminded me of the rat faced little man who had threatened me with a gun. But I knew it couldn't be him because that had happened almost thirty years ago. As the hearing droned on, my mind wandered back to the many times I had sat in hearings just like this. I could remember some of the faces in the long list polygraph experts who had gone up against me during the many years that I had been doing this. Some were fat and out of shape, some more big brutish men, some were old and frail, and some, like this little man, tried to convey the appearance of being a truly credible scientist. They all had one thing in common, they tried to explain the best way they could how it was possible for them to detect deception with an instrument as crude as the polygraph. They all resorted to the use of confusing and shady scientific terminology, because they simply could not come out and tell the truth about the polygraph or they would be laughed out of court. Mr. BS was doing his best to try to make the arbitrator believe there was something scientifically sound about the so-called lie detector. I could only smile sympathetically as I watched the arbitrator trying to follow what Mr. BS was saying, and struggling to make sense of any of it.

Okay, let’s get back to more of Mr. BS's psychobabble doubletalk testimony. At this point in his testimony Mr. BS is being questioned by the FOP attorney about how the polygraph test is scored.

Question: Mr. BS, if I show a reaction on a relevant question that's greater than a control question that means I'm lying is that correct?

Answer: A single presentation would be insufficient. The test as a whole would be scored. So I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Question: Okay, let’s get down to some basics and see if I can understand how you – the rubric that we’re in here. Would you agree with me that, on a polygraph chart, you are comparing control questions to the relevant questions? Would you at least agree with me on that?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay and the subject has to score consistently greater on a relevant question than a control question in order for you to conclude that that's deceptive?

Answer: We would not say it that way. We would say they have to show significant reaction.

Question: Okay. Consistently throughout the exam, would you agree with that?

Answer: I would say the way we would say it would be they would show significantly – statistically significantly greater reactions to either the relevant or the comparison questions. If – I guess maybe you could clarify your question. Is your question about the issue of consistency?

Question: Sure. Do you have to be consistently greater on one or the other for you to score the exam deceptive, not deceptive, or inconclusive?

Answer: I think I'm confused because of the way you're asking the question. Because scientists don't use the word consistently that way, they use the word statistically significant.

Question: Statistically significant?

Answer: So how would we measure consistently? We can measure statistical significance.

I can sense the FOP attorney’s growing frustration with this little man, his condescending attitude, and his evasive, unresponsive answers to simple questions. But, he plows on:

Question: Let's kind of break this down. So there's three polygraph charts, which means he was asked these questions one time on this chart, and he was asked them again on this chart, he was asked them again on the third chart. Agreed?

Answer: Yeah.

Question: Okay. Now, on this first chart, when I have a reaction on a relevant question, that gives you something to measure there. Do you agree with that?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Okay, now can you call it a lie based on that one reaction on a relevant question that’s significantly or statistically greater?

Answer: You can't determine – – you can't make a determination on a single presentation. You have to conduct the entire test and evaluate the whole test.

Question: So in evaluating the whole test, how much more reaction do you need across the whole test on a relevant question than a control question to call someone a liar?

Answer: Again, I'm confused by your question because of the way you're asking it, we don't – when you say "how much", it sounds like you're asking for a linear measurement. And that's not what we do. We measure statistical significance we measure the difference between the salience and the differential response to these two types of questions in a non-parametric way.

Question: Okay. Throughout the exam you have to show more reaction on the relevant question than on the control questions to be called deceptive?

Answer: The reactions to the relevant questions have to be statistically significantly greater than the reactions to the comparison question.

Question: And how much larger does the reaction to the relevant question have to be?

Answer: Well in the comparison algorithm it will measure everything that… that exists. If it's a tiny, tiny, difference, it will measure it; if it's a great deal of difference, it will measure that too. Then we manually score. The scientific studies have told us that we can score and rely on this diagnostic information any differential magnitude of reaction that we can observe with our eyes.

Question: So you can score the polygraph charts if you can see any differences in the size of reactions with your eyes?

Answer: Within reason.

Question: How do you determine what is, "within reason"?

Answer: In blunt terms, you have to be able to point to it and get another human being to go like this, (Mr. BS is nodding his head up and down). If they nod their head up and down, yes, this one is larger than that one.

Question: And that is what they teach at the polygraph school? And is that how you teach it in the school where you teach?

Answer: That's not how we teach it but that's, uh, uh, you asked me to make it simple for you.

Question: Then tell me exactly how you score a polygraph chart how have you come up with that statistically greater amount that would indicate deception? Tell me how you get that.

Answer: It would take me a week to teach you how to score a polygraph test.

Question: Well, do your best to summarize.

Answer: It’s a non-parametric transformation. Which means that we make no assumptions about the linear scale of measurement, such as OHM supported or physical units of measurements, or volts, we use those in order operationalize the components, but the scale of measurement is nonparametric.

The FOP attorney continued on with this line of questioning for another thirty minutes and never got another straight answer to a single question about how Mr. BS determined that the polygraph charts showed deception. Mr. BS continued to be evasive and to give nonsensical answers to simple questions about how the polygraph charts are scored. I'll give him this, Mr. BS had certainly studied the “polygraph terms for the 21st-century". His vocabulary was a deliberately confusing concoction of psychobabble, doublespeak, and doubletalk; what most people would call bullshit. But in spite of his frustration, and growing anger, the FOP attorney soldiered on. And he had managed to get at least two things I could work with; Mr. BS's statement that in order for the officer to be called deceptive on his polygraph examination, "The reactions to the relevant questions have to be statistically significantly greater than the reactions to the comparison (control) questions". And his statement that in order to score a chart as deceptive, you simply had to get another person to point at a reaction and nod their head in agreement that it was larger on the relevant than on the control. I made a note of both of these statements on my notepad to remind me to bring it up in my testimony.

The FOP attorney noticed that even the Arbitrator was frustrated with Mr. BS’s way of answering the questions without saying anything that made any sense. Mr. BS had obviously forgotten, or maybe it had never occurred to him, that he was there as an expert witness to convince the Arbitrator that the polygraph was valid as a lie detector; instead, he was acting like a scientist talking down to an ignorant underling. The FOP attorney pressed Mr. BS harder on the point.

Question: Okay, tell me what you're going to see there on the chart. What types of things are going to lead you to score this exam as deceptive?

Answer: In a scientific sense, it's more important what we see, instead of the fact that the numerical result is not statistically significant, the margin of error.

The FOP attorney was now shaking his head in disbelief. This was getting to be ridiculous. And Mr. BS’s arrogant obfuscation was apparently also irritating the arbitrator who interrupted and said, "Mr. BS, I'm sure the court reporter is not getting anything you're saying, because frankly, it does not make any sense to me either." He looked at the FOP attorney and told him to continue.

Question: Explain to me what you just said.

Answer: The probability of error is not below our threshold for tolerance of error.

Question: What is the threshold of tolerance of error?

Answer: For a deceptive score?

Question: Yes.

Answer: It will vary from one agency to another, but in behavioral sciences, alpha is commonly set at .05.

By now, the FOP attorney was not even trying to hide his disgust and disbelief at the way, Mr. BS was continuing to respond by answering the questions with pseudoscientific nonsensical answers, or more correctly refusing to answer his questions at all. But, the FOP attorney persisted, this time taking a different approach.

Question: Okay, let me ask you a couple of questions about these control questions on the exam. Now, in order to compare a control question to a relevant question, would you agree with me that they have to have the same meaning to the subject of the examination?

Answer: No.

Question: Why?

Answer: The relevant questions are – well, I don't know what you mean when you say, "meaning".

Question: There has to be some sort of intrinsic value that I place on the control question. Because I'm going to produce some sort of a result on the control question, whether it's flat line or whether it's you know, off the charts. I'm going to show some sort of a reaction to that question. Would you agree with that?

Answer: Maybe you will, and maybe you won't.

Question: Okay. But something is going to happen when you ask me that control question on the exam, I'm either going to show an increase in blood pressure, skin conductivity, and breathing, or I am not.

Answer: Those things are possible.

Question: Okay, if you're going to compare my reaction, or lack thereof, to the relevant questions, with my reaction, or lack thereof, to the control questions, how do you design a control question that has the same importance to me as the relevant question?

Answer: Oh, I see. I think I understand. That's the function of the pretest interview. That's why it's important that we interview people without interference.

Question: How can you be sure, one hundred percent sure, that your control questions have the same intrinsic meaning to me as the relevant question, a question that if I react to it, I'd probably get fired.

Answer: Well, we can't. Nothing in life is 100% sure.

Question: But these control questions have to mean something to me in order for you to make a valid comparison with the relevant questions, right?

Answer: We don't make comparisons with the relevant…uh, uh, that is….uh you’re, in fact, imposing, uh, uh, and you’re injecting the term, "valid", which is not how we discuss it.

The FOP attorney finally had Mr. BS really struggling to keep from admitting to one of the basic and most significant problems with the pseudoscience of the polygraph as a lie detector. And that is that there is no way to compose a control question that has the same emotional impact as an accusatory relevant question. I had spent many hours coaching the FOP attorney on how he should question Mr. BS, and that coaching was starting to pay off. He pressed Mr. BS further on this point.

Question: If a control question doesn't mean anything at all to me, how can you compare that to a relevant question? How can you come up with a deceptive conclusion if I have a reaction to the relevant question that is greater than my reaction to the control question if I know the control question doesn’t mean anything to me?

Answer: I want to make sure I understand your question. And it sounds as if you're… we…uh… We would compare the relevant question and the comparison question, uh..uh.. when we score the test. If the relevant questions produce statistically significantly greater reactions than the comparison questions, if the comparison questions were set up correctly in the context of a properly conducted pretest interview, then, yes, we would assume that that means that the person is deceptive with regard to the relevant questions.

Question: Okay, let's assume I'm telling the truth on a probable lie question, which is how you describe a control or, it is called a known lie or probable lie control question, correct?

Answer: Uh, yes.

Question: Okay, if I'm telling the truth to the probable lie control question, what is that going to do to the comparison of this control question with the relevant questions?

Answer: I have no idea because we don't think of it that way. That's not how we conduct the polygraph test. Probable lies are…uh, a probable lie is because we assume that people are probably…… probably lying.

Question: What happens to your assumption if they're telling the truth though? It's a big assumption to make, that a person is lying on a control question. What about if the person is telling the truth? That seems to be……

Answer: (Mr. BS interrupts the FOP attorney to answer.) The polygraph doesn't measure lies and truth per se it measures reaction to a stimulus, okay. The question seems to produce a reaction. It seemed to produce a reaction from the examinee. So I think we might be talking about two different things here. You're talking about the actual truth status of a person's response, and that's just not a..uh…uh.. That's not a conversation that has been determined. I don't know I'm not sure I have it. The probable, uh, uh…. if you're telling,….uh, uh, that's a question for science. I don't have the answer to that right now.

I grinned to myself and made another note on my notepad. The FOP attorney had actually gotten Mr. BS so nervous that he slipped up and actually answered at least one question truthfully when he said, "the polygraph doesn't measure lies and truth per se; it measures a reaction to a stimulus".

Question: Is there any way for you to tell if this officer was telling the truth on his probable lie control questions?

Answer: No. The way we determined the truth of a probable lie question is if it satisfies the basic description of the probable lie a broad question about a category of behavior which most people are probably lying if they answer no. So, for example, before this year, which could incompetence 20, 30, or 40 years person's life, did they ever lie to somebody in authority. Most people, it is assumed, simply, that most people are lying if they answer that question no cause most people simply are just not perfect. They’re lying to their parents, or their teachers, or uh, uh, somebody.

Question: But the fact is, that assumption can be wrong in some cases as a matter of fact, can it not?

Answer: I suppose there are saintly people.

Question: Okay let me ask you this, it is my understanding there are several different scoring methods polygraph exams. Would you agree with that?

Answer: Yes. There's several different algorithms out there. There's several different manual scoring protocols. Seven position scoring protocol, there's actually several different versions of that: the Baxter version, US federal version, Utah version, ATSM. They're all closely related. The differences are actually rather meaningless to most of the scientists. There are three position calls that were adapted from seven positions. Those are federal protocols. And there's the empirical scoring system. And there are rank order scoring protocols. Researchers have investigated different ways valuate data.

Question: And what method did you use to score this officer’s charts?

Answer: I use the empirical scoring system, and I reevaluated his results here. And found the same result as the police examiner, deceptive. It returned a significant reaction particularly for deception; with a value of .016 area it set the P – value, this test result. I transferred the ESS is .032. The difference is just due to the fact that the computer I used has a more powerful parametric math.

The FOP attorney, obviously realizing that Mr. BS had reverted back to his double talk, and was back in his number nonsense mode, dismissed him from the witness stand.

The arbitrator called for a short break, and I leaned over to the FOP attorney and the FOP union representative and said simply, I am going to absolutely destroy that little twerp, and I'm going to use his own words to do it.

After about a ten minute break, the arbitrator called the hearing to order, and I was then called to the stand to give my testimony. After being introduced and sworn in, my testimony began.

Question: Sir, tell us a little bit about yourself and your background.

Answer: I was in Oklahoma City police officer from 1969 to the latter part of 1979. I was a Detective Sergeant in charge of the polygraph section of the internal affairs division from 1972 to 1979 during which time I ran somewhere between about four thousand and six thousand polygraph examinations. And then in 1979, I resigned with the stated purpose of doing everything I could to outlaw the use of the polygraph.

Question: Prior to your employment with the Oklahoma City Police Department were you in the military?

Answer: Yes, I was in the Air Force, assigned to the White House Situation Room and was the communications advisor to Presidents Johnson and Nixon. I worked for President Johnson for about three years and President Nixon for about six months.

Question: Okay, now fast-forward little bit, back to your police experience. You said you are involved in the internal affairs department the Oklahoma City Police Department. Tell me a little bit about that.

Answer: Basically I did all the police pre-employment polygraph examinations, all of the polygraph examinations for the internal affairs investigations, and quite a few of the criminal investigations for the detective division, primarily the robbery homicide division.

Question: At some point in your life were you a licensed polygraph examiner?

Answer: Yes I was a licensed polygraph examiner from 1972 to 1979.

Question: Have you ever given testimony to any local, state, or federal governmental bodies in the United States?

Answer: Yes, I have testified quite a few times in all of those jurisdictions. I guess the most prominent one was the United States House of Representatives were I testified in the subcommittee on education and labor on behalf of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act which later became a federal law that outlaws the use of the polygraph in the private sector. And if I could interject here, if this officer was a clerk at the local convenience store it would be against federal law to do to him what has been done by his own police chief, and that is to fire him because he failed a polygraph test.

I have also testified in quite a few of these kinds of arbitration hearings in many different cities. I also testified in the Texas state legislature and they enacted a law that prohibits the use of the polygraph in internal affairs investigations of Texas state troopers.

Question: Have you ever done any research or field studies on polygraph examinations?

Answer: I have done a lot of research in terms of reading the fiction that passes for research from the polygraph community. But, I have only been involved in one actual study, and to my knowledge it is the only study that has ever been done using the polygraph in a real life situation.

This study was basically an investigation into the validity of the polygraph as a lie detector, and was done with CBS 60 MINUTES, which by the way, was and is still the most prestigious news magazine investigative program ever produced.

Question: And was that program broadcast on television?

Answer: Yes, it has been aired a number of times. The first time was on Mother's Day Sunday of 1986, and it was aired many times over the next two years. It was also shown in some of the subcommittee hearings in the House and Senate and, in 1986, I personally delivered video tapes of this broadcast to the offices of every member of the United States Senate and every member of the United States House of Representatives. I have been told by numerous representatives of the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, as well as members of the House and Senate, that this exposé on the polygraph was the primary thing that led to the passage of the EPPA, a law which, again, made it illegal to do to an employee in private industry what was done to this police officer.

The attorney for the FOP handed a DVD to the arbitrator and told him that it was a copy of the CBS 60 MINUTES program, and that he would like to have it admitted into evidence. The city attorney jumped up from his chair and literally exploded, saying that this was not proper, and demanding that it not be admitted into evidence. I knew this was coming because I had seen Mr. BS in a very animated conversation with the city attorney about the CBS 60 MINUTES tape. He knew how dangerous that tape was to the polygraph industry and he did not want it shown in the hearing or even admitted into evidence.

The city attorney and the FOP attorney argued back and forth for a while and finally the arbitrator interrupted and said, "In hearings I have conducted previously, sometimes outside commentators are cited to me on the question of polygraph examinations. I'll receive this DVD as evidence, and you can continue your arguments in briefs submitted to me later. I am going to watch this to see what evidence this witness has produced for this 60 MINUTES program." The FOP attorney smiled at me and continued with his questioning.

Question: And sir, you have participated in many other televised studies; I think you said you were on a show with PENN & TELLER. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes.

At this point the arbitrator interrupted and asked, "I'm sorry, what? Did you say, PENN & TELLER?" He began laughing, and said, "I'm sorry guys, but, PENN & TELLER?"

I laughed along with him, and said, "It was funny. It was meant to be funny. The show was broadcast on HBO, and the actual full name of the show was called, “PENN & TELLER, THE LIE DETECTOR is BULLSHIT!” Excuse my language but was exact title of the show and it did in fact prove that the lie detector is bullshit." The laughter continued with the FOP attorney, the officer, the FOP representative, the arbitrator and even the court reporter. The city attorney, Mr. BS, and the chief of police on the other side were stone-faced and stared grimly at the table in front of them. Finally the laughter subsided, and the FOP attorney continued.

Question: Sir, have you stayed current on the latest developments in the polygraph industry?

Answer: Yes, I read all the literature and I have the latest computerized polygraph instrument with the most recent scoring software installed.

Question: And, sir, have you developed an opinion as to the validity and reliability of the polygraph?

Answer: Yes, I most certainly have, and it is the exact same opinion I had when I left the Police Department, and that is that the polygraph when used as a lie detector, is no more accurate than the toss of a coin. And it is with no small amount of pride that I point out that that was the exact same phrase that the US Supreme Court used when they refused to allow the results of the polygraph as evidence. It is indeed no more accurate than the toss of a coin.

The city attorney interrupted and stood to his feet, and almost shouted, "I'll object to the hearsay comment about the Supreme Court justice." I just looked at the arbitrator and he said very quietly, "Yeah, I think that's… sustained." He looked at me almost apologetically, and I looked at him and smiled as if to say, "I understand." I then looked at the city attorney and said, "If you would take the time to read the Supreme Court’s opinion, you will find that it is not hearsay, it is in fact a direct quote." The FOP attorney smiled and continued his questioning before the city attorney could say anything else.

Question: Sir, why do you have such a low opinion of polygraphs?

Answer: Actually, the percentage of accuracy of the polygraph as a lie detector has actually diminished in my mind over a period of time. I no longer believe that the polygraph is accurate even 50% of the time. As a matter of fact in the CBS 60 MINUTES investigation, I proved that the polygraph was 100% wrong 100% of the time, because three out of three different polygraph examiners called three out of three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened. So in this investigation, and this is the only actual field study ever done on the accuracy of the polygraph using a real life situation, the polygraph was not even as accurate as the toss of a coin.

Question: Do you have an opinion as to Mr. BS's testimony?

Answer: When I hear Mr. BS’s testimony, I am reminded of a quote by George Bernard Shaw which says, "Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance". Mr. BS here has got a lot of knowledge, there's no question about it. I mean, his knowledge is so vast it could probably fill reams and reams of paper. But the problem arises from the fact that the knowledge he has about this polygraph is based on a false premise. Even the inventor of the polygraph, John Larson, who by the way had a PhD, knew that there was no scientific basis to justify the use of a polygraph as a lie detector. As a matter of fact, Larson called the lie detector a Frankenstein's monster, and he spent the last forty years of his life trying to destroy this monstrous myth that the polygraph is a lie detector.

The premise of the polygraph is that those reactions that the polygraph examiners brand as a lie are nothing more than nervous reactions to a stimulus. And , by the way, the reaction the polygraph records is simply an erratic breathing pattern a slight increase in blood pressure or pulse rate and an increase in the sweat activity in your hands. There is no scientific evidence which proves that these reactions always indicate deception. But these are the very same reactions which will brand a person as a liar if they are produced in response to a relevant question. Many polygraph examiners cite so-called scientific studies which they say prove that the polygraph is 95 to 98% accurate as a lie detector. But the problems with the studies are that they either do not exist, or they are so biased that their statistics mean nothing. And the experiments that they say they have conducted proved the validity of the so-called lie detector are so confusing and biased that they mean nothing. Someone once said, "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment".

I will grant you that there is a possibility that 50% of the time these reactions may indicate deception. But 50% of the time it will more likely be caused by any number of other things; fear, embarrassment, rage at having been asked the question, even simple nervousness can cause this exact same reaction that would brand a person as a liar. In fact any number of scientific studies have proved that this exact same reaction, which is basically the fight or flight response, can be caused by any number of innocent stimuli; even the tone of the examiner's voice when asking the question can cause a reaction or prevent a person from having a reaction.

I do totally agree with Mr. BS when he said just a while ago that the polygraph does not record truth or deception: it records your response to stimulus. Now that is one of the few truthful statements that Mr. BS made in his testimony, as a matter of fact it's about the only one that even makes sense, and I fully agree with it. The polygraph does not record truth or deception; it simply records your response to stimulus. And with that in mind, how dare Mr. BS accuse this officer of deception, when by his own admission the polygraph does not record truth or deception.

Why does Mr. BS take this polygraph chart and say, okay well, this reaction to this stimulus shows deception on the chart when he has already said the polygraph does not record truth or deception, which is the only other statement he made during his entire testimony that made any sense and which I fully agree with? So let me repeat it again Mr. BS testified that the polygraph does not record truth or deception. And saying that this officer showed deception when he answered certain relevant questions is a giant leap to a conclusion for which there is no sound scientific basis, and which he himself contradicted in his own testimony when he said that truth or deception was something the polygraph was not capable of determining. So please explain to me, in light of his previous testimony, how Mr. BS has the temerity to say that this officer's chart was indicating deception.

Question: In your opinion, is it possible for somebody to tell the truth during a polygraph examination and still be found deceptive?

Answer: Sure, a person will be branded as a liar, if his reactions to the stimulus of a threatening, accusatory, relevant question evoked a greater reaction than his reaction to the stimulus evoked by some benign, non-threatening control question. For example they will compare control questions like, "Did you ever steal anything when you were a child?" to relevant questions like those asked on this officer’s polygraph test, such as, "Did you lie to your captain in your report about your actions under investigation by the internal affairs investigation?"

Now, if the officer has an ounce of brains in his head, he will know which question is important in which question isn't. He will know which question, if lied to, will cause him to lose his job and which one won't. And if he is the least bit concerned or nervous, perhaps even thinking that he is being set up to fail by even having been asked to take a polygraph test in the first place, he will certainly have more trepidation about the question in the more nervous when he answers it. He will no doubt be very concerned about his answer, and worried about how the polygraph will score his answer to that accusatory relevant question.

Question: Mr. Williams, you have had the opportunity to look at this officer’s polygraph charts. Would you please go through them and explain all of what you see to the arbitrator?

Answer: Sure, the first chart, the one with just the numbers, is what they call in the polygraph profession a stimulus test. They asked the subject to pick one of a series of numbers and to lie about which number they picked. In other words, let's say the subject picks seven out of a series of numbers between four and nine. The polygraph operator will then run a test ask him a series of questions about which number he picked. The subject will be told to lie about the number he picked and the polygraph operator will try to impress the subject by telling him which number he picked. Of course it's just a trick and the deck of cards with the numbers on them are marked or the polygraph operator has memorized the sequence of numbers on the cards and knows which one was picked as soon as it's pulled from the deck. But the purpose of the stimulation test is to basically frighten the subject by convincing him that the polygraph operator will always catch them in a lie. It is a well-known, commonly used interrogation technique.

You must always keep in mind that the whole point of using the polygraph is to get a person to confess; that is the reason the polygraph was invented, and it is the reason it continues to be used. The polygraph is a great way to get a confession; it is an excellent psychological billy club used to coerce a person into a confession. The polygraph is just a ruse that is used to get a person into the hands of a trained interrogator to interrogate him as long as he wants to interrogate him without benefit of counsel. The polygraph operator can ask any question he wants. And no one can object to this questioning because no one else is allowed in the room because the polygraph industry has convinced everyone that this is a scientific procedure that must not be interrupted by any one such as an attorney who would certainly tell his client not to answer most of the questions posed by the polygraph operator in the pretest "interview".

This stimulus test is a big con just like the entire polygraph test itself; as a matter of fact, the effectiveness of any polygraph examination depends on the polygraph operator lying to his subject. Just like when the polygraph operator lies to the subject, telling him how import the control questions are. This is what Mr. BS meant when he said the pretest interview was so important. The pretest interview is when the polygraph operator lies to the subject in order to establish the importance of the control questions in the subjects mind. What Mr. BS didn't tell you was that the polygraph operator is in fact simply lying to the subject, by implication or inference, that these control questions mean just as much to him, the polygraph operator, as the relevant questions. It is ironic that the polygraph operator must lie to the subject in order for a lied to be detected. Although the polygraph operator does not label them as relevant or control questions, he lies to the subject about how important it is to take the control questions very seriously.

So this stimulation test is just one of the methods used during the pretest interview to basically psych the person out. They try to stress the importance of the control question and tried very hard to overcome what they know is a significant weakness in their method. They know very well they cannot compose a control question that has the same emotional impact as a relevant question so they spend a great deal of time stressing the importance of the control questions.

And as always, the primary goal of the polygraph test is to get the subject to confess. So they do the good cop bad cop routine. The polygraph operator is the good cop, and the polygraph instrument plays a role as the bad cop. The polygraph examiner says things like why don't you just go ahead and tell me what really happened here and I'll help you explain it to the chief. We don't want to go through this and have this machine call you a liar, that's just get it cleared up right now. Go ahead tell me the truth.

Many of the confessions I obtain when I was a polygraph operator was before I ever even hooked the person up to the machine. I would get them so psyched out and convinced they would be caught lying that they would simply agree that it would be better to go ahead and confess to me rather than get caught lying on the polygraph.

I pause here and pick up the paper printouts of the polygraph charts that are on the table in front of me. And I begin showing the arbitrator what the polygraph records, pointing out the cardio tracing at the bottom of the chart, the GSR line in the middle of the chart, and the two pneumo, or breathing tracings at the top of the chart. I point out again that this is simply an instrument that can watch your heartbeat, watch your fingers sweat, and watch you breathe. I point out that there is no consistent reaction on the relevant questions that is greater than any of the reactions to the control questions. I then resume my testimony.

Answer: When the polygraph operator scores a person's charts, he simply compares the reactions to the relevant questions with the reactions to the control questions. The charts are scored just like Mr. BS said, and he is absolutely right, he looks at those reactions on the relevant questions, and then he looks at the reactions on the control questions, and compares the two. And, if the reaction to the relevant questions is consistently greater than any of the reactions to the control questions the subject is found to be deceptive.

And I was delighted to see Mr. BS put it so simply when he said that anybody looking at the reactions would nod their head and say yeah. So we could look at the charts and see if we nod our heads and say yeah, (I said this very sarcastically). Don't you see how that alone demonstrates how subjective the whole scoring method is?

So let's score this officers chart together, since Mr. BS has already said that all that is necessary is that another human being nod their head and say yeah, that reaction on the relevant question is greater than the other reaction on the control question. Let's see if we can all get together and agree to nod our heads on which is greater on this officer’s chart.

Bearing in mind that I can prove that these so called reactions really only indicate nervousness and seldom if ever indicate deception, for the purposes of our joint scoring session only, let's stipulate, for the purposes of our little joint scoring exercise, that a consistent reaction to a relevant question that is greater than any reaction to a control question will always indicate deception.

Here we go, let's look at this chart and compare the reactions ourselves. Let’s see if we can all nod our heads and say, yeah that reaction on that relevant question is greater than that reaction on that control question.

(I held up the chart so that the arbitrator could see, and pointed at the reactions on each of the questions. And I gave a running commentary as we all evaluated the comparative size of the reactions. I was trying to be as sarcastic as possible to show how ridiculous the whole idea of “scoring a polygraph chart” really is.)

Let's look at these reactions here on the chart. I really don't see where you can nod your head, consistently nod your head, and say yeah there is a greater reaction on control question number four, or is the reaction greater on relevant question number seven? Wait a minute; there is a heck of a lot more head nodding and, everyone saying “yeah” on control question number four than there is on relevant question number seven. No, wait a minute, no that control question looks like you had a bigger reaction than that other relevant question, oh no, does anyone here feel like nodding their head and saying yeah this reaction on this relevant question is greater than this reaction on this control question? Does anyone here feel like nodding their head on this question as opposed to this question? (I had said all of this with a tone of voice that was dripping with sarcasm mixed with contemptuous laughter.)

I think most people would agree with me that this is so absurd it borders on being a hilarious. I mean stop and think about it; we are sitting here saying, well here we go, let's take into consideration that we’re going to use this reaction on this question to say that this officer is a liar but we are not going to use this reaction on this other question to say that he is telling the truth. We are going to decide when to nod our heads and say yeah, we are going to use our index finger and point here and say, yeah I'll nod my head and say that one is greater. Remember, Mr. BS himself, the scientist, the polygraph expert, the instructor that trains people in the polygraph profession how to score a polygraph chart, has said that all that is needed to call a person a liar is to have another human being nod their head and say yeah that reaction is bigger on the relevant question and therefore we will score this chart as deceptive. How utterly absurd!

But, let's use Mr. BS’s scoring technique and look at this chart again, because if you look at it closely there is no real consistency here. One relevant question may have a bigger reaction than one of the control questions on one section of the chart but the reverse is true on a different section of the chart, and none of the three charts show the same degree of reaction on any of the relevant questions. It's all so confusing isn't it?

The reason it is confusing is because it is nonsense. Any prudent person would look at this chart and consider the way, Mr. BS tells us to score it and realize it makes no sense at all. And Mr. BS himself has already told us that the polygraph doesn't measure truth or deception. So what does all this mean? Why did this officer have any reaction to any of the relevant questions? And what do these reactions really mean? Could it be that he just got very nervous when he was asked that question? Heck, I don't know what it means. But I will repeat what Mr. BS said it means, he said it means that he had a reaction to a stimulus. Now as to what that stimulus was, what that reaction means, nobody knows. We only know that he was stimulated on some of the questions but then on another chart he was stimulated on the control questions as much if not more than on the relevant questions.

So in order for us to nod our heads and say yeah, we need to agree that this officer was at least more stimulated on the relevant questions than the control questions. And that in order to call him deceptive, we must agree and nod our heads yeah he was consistently stimulated on every relevant question on all three charts. You tell me, which ones will we agree to nod our heads on? I don't see anything on there where I nod my head and say yeah there was consistently a greater reaction to the stimulus on one question that there was a reaction to the stimulus on any other. In fact quite the reverse is true on a couple of them. On a couple of charge the control questions at greater reactions than the relevant questions. And you know in order to score the chart we need to get two or three different people to nod their heads and say yeah. I think I have belabored this scoring business enough. I think I have made my point. Surely we can all agree that it is just so much psychobabble, and that it means nothing.

Question: Let me ask you a couple more questions about the polygraph and police officer specifically. In your opinion, in the case of a police officer who's taking a polygraph and knowing his job is on the line, could that fact alone affect exam?

Answer: Yes, the mere fact that it's an internal investigation, and you’re setting in the chair hooked up to a polygraph while being questioned about something that you know could cause you to lose your job, is very nerve-racking. I used to call it putting them on the box. And every police officer knew that when you were put on the box you were already in very deep trouble. And you pretty much know already that no good is going to come from this.

Question: Would you agree that the polygraph attempts to compare relevant questions to control questions?

Answer: That is exactly what it does.

Question: And your statement is that there is no way to design control question that has the same intrinsic value to the examinee as the relevant question?

Answer: That is one of the many problems with trying to use a polygraph to detect lies. There is no way you can convince a subject that a control question is as important as a relevant question. And to compare the two is an exercise in futility and stupidity.

Question: Is there anything else you think the arbitrator might want to know about the polygraph exam or any of the evidence presented here today?

Answer: I think we have pretty much destroyed the myth of the polygraph as being a lie detector but I would encourage you Mr. arbitrator to watch the DVD of the CBS 60 MINUTES program. It is right on point with what we are debating here today. In this program three out of three innocent truthful people were called liars simply because someone suggested that they may be lying. The same is true in this case. When this officer was given his polygraph test, the commanders suggested to the polygraph operator that this officer was a liar, and that became a self fulfilling prophecy – the polygraph operator called him a liar.

I was excused from the witness stand, and the arbitrator called for a short recess. The city attorney, Mr. BS, and the chief all hurried out of the room whispering to each other and glancing back over their shoulders at me. I knew that Mr. BS had figured out who I was. I have grown my hair back to shoulder length, and now sported a beard so he did not recognize me at first. But when he heard my testimony, he knew exactly who I was and he knew that I had destroyed his credibility as a witness. And from the looks he was receiving from the chief and the city attorney they knew that too.

I turned to the FOP attorney and the FOP union representative and said "You're about to see an amazing demonstration of what is referred to in debate class as an ad hominem argument, commonly referred to as a personal attack. The city attorney could condense his entire cross examination into one question. He could simply ask, Mr. Williams, are you a complete and total asshole? To which I would happily reply, yes, and I've never claimed to be anything else. He could then say case closed and we could all go home.” That got a big laugh from everyone in the room, including the arbitrator and the court reporter.

After the city attorney introduced himself for the record and got my name and credentials and all the preliminary questions of the way he began his questioning.

Question: Mr. Williams what was a last publication that you ever put out on the polygraphs?

Answer: I guess the last publication would be my revised edition of, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH; that is a publication that teaches people how to always pass their polygraph examinations. I have also written a few articles and been consulted on a few more over the years in various magazines and newspapers.

Question: Were any of your article subject to peer review by other polygraph examiners where they commented on the receipt of your articles or anything like that?

Answer: I have no peers. (I noticed that answer got a quick grin from the arbitrator)

Question: Okay, you mentioned that you had testified in Congress, what was that testimony concerning?

Answer: I testified in the United States House of Representatives, in the subcommittee on employment opportunities in favor of passage of a bill that later became the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, that is a federal law which outlawed the use of the polygraph in private industry. I also testified as a panel member and witness providing information as to the lack of validity of the polygraph as a lie detector in a study commissioned by the Office of Technology Assessment which is an investigative arm of the United States Congress.

Question: Have you done any recent research on the use of the polygraph?

Answer: Sure, I am continually researching the polygraph, and proving how easy it is to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will.

Question: Have you done any large field studies regarding the accuracy of the polygraph test?

Answer: Sure I conduct field studies on a regular basis; as a matter of fact the last field study I conducted was two days ago. I have my own computerized polygraph instrument and I regularly administer practice polygraph examinations on people. Using my sting technique, I am able to teach them to always pass their polygraph examinations, and to produce what the latest scoring algorithms report as no deception indicated. I do this by explaining to them the difference between the relevant and control questions, and how the polygraph test works, how it is scored, and then I ask them questions that are exactly like the questions they will be asked on the polygraph test they are being required to submit to. And they always pass using my technique. I have been doing these field studies for many years and have taught thousands of people how to pass their polygraph tests in actual real life polygraph situations.

Question: Are you being paid for your testimony here in this case?

Answer: Yes, I often do this for free, as a matter of fact the last one I did for this firm free, but this time I think I'm getting about $550 an hour from the FOP insurance company.

Question: Now you make money off polygraphs don't you?

Answer: Sure, I make money from my website by selling manuals and DVDs, I make money administering practice polygraph examinations and one-on-one training, and I make money by testifying in arbitration hearings like this and in various other venues.

Question: So you make money by trying to destroy the polygraph industry?

Answer: Yes, but if I am successful in destroying the polygraph industry, the result would be that I will also put myself out of business too. And I would consider that a fair trade-off. If they will stop running polygraph tests I will stop fighting against them. But if you are trying to say that I am doing this for the money let me just tell you this. I started this crusade against the polygraph in 1979 and I did not make one single dime until 1996. So if you are implying that I'm in it for the money, you will have to admit that I waited a long time to get my first paycheck.

Question: You have a website, www.polygraph.com. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes

Question: And on that website you promote that you'll teach anybody how to beat a polygraph, correct?

Answer: I say that I can teach people how to pass their polygraph test. But it is not accurate to say I teach them how to beat the test because that implies that the polygraph is a valid instrument capable of detecting deception, and that I am teaching people how to beat a valid instrument. If the polygraph really worked as well as polygraph examiners say it does, it would be impossible for me to teach anyone how to beat it, or how to pass it for that matter.

Question: And you'll teach anybody, a sex offender, a terrorist trying to get into the CIA… you don't do any background check?

Answer: No I don't teach any terrorists! Your use of hyperbole is very proof that you can’t defend the use of the polygraph as a “lie detector” and you are trying to make me into something I’m not. I am simply telling the truth about the problems inherent in using the polygraph as a lie detector! People must learn how to pass because just telling the truth doesn’t work. The government’s own statistics show over 60% of their applicants are disqualified by the polygraph. And these people have already had a background check completed so anyone with any sense knows by simply looking at the failure rate that the polygraph doesn't work. The mere fact that over half of the applicants are called liars, even after they have passed a very thorough background investigation, proves the polygraph is not valid as a lie detector. They come to me for training because they are simply trying to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying.

And as to teaching sex offenders how to pass, the answer is yes. And again, I must add that I don’t teach liars how to lie and get away with it – I teach truthful people how to prove their truthfulness. I will repeat what I have said many times; just telling the truth only works about half the time and half the time truthful people are branded as liars just because they are nervous. So, I just teach people how to overcome their nervousness so that they won’t be accused of lying simply because they are nervous. Besides that, the whole idea of using polygraphs on sex offenders is ludicrous. The results can't be used in court, but they are forced to take it as part of a so-called treatment plan that Mr. BS is very familiar with because he and many other con men like him make a lot of money doing periodic polygraph tests on these people. It is just another money making scheme cooked up by psychologists and polygraph operators working together in a so-called sex offenders therapy program. It is nothing but a form of harassment, and to add insult to injury, the person who is ordered to take numerous polygraph tests as part of his “treatment”, has to pay for the tests himself. Mr. BS and many other polygraph examiners have jumped on this moneymaking bandwagon and refer to themselves as psychologists and mental health professionals who utilize polygraph testing in conjunction with psychological therapy. I wonder how he and others who call themselves psychologists justify the use of the polygraph in their psychological therapy sessions when their own associations say that polygraphs are of little or no value in this area. Their own associations say the polygraph is only accurate about 50% of the time.

Question: Mr. Williams are you proud of what you have done?

Answer: No, I am ashamed of myself; I’m sorry that I have not been able to destroy the polygraph industry by now. I have been trying to destroy what its inventor, John Larson, called a Frankenstein’s monster for as many years, just as he did, but this con game is still going strong; and this scam, this myth of lie detection, continues to ruin people’s lives by falsely branding them as liars. This officer is just one of the many millions of lives and careers that have been ruined by these con men and their so called lie detector.

Question: And you could have, well according to your book, you say you will help anybody make sure they get past the polygraph correct?

Answer: I can and will and do exactly that. I can teach anyone how to pass any polygraph test given by anyone, anytime, over anything. That is just one of the methods I am employing in an attempt to destroy this insidious Orwellian instrument. Polygraph operators know that I can do this, but they do not dare admit it because it would be tantamount to an admission that the polygraph test is worthless.

Question: (The city attorney picks up some papers that are printed copies of my entire website, and hands them out to the arbitrator, to me, and to the FOP attorney.) These are your advertisements by which you tell people you can teach them how always pass their polygraph tests?

Answer: Yes, and thanks for the free advertisement counselor; please feel free to distribute as many of those as you like. But in answer to your question, yes that is correct I can teach people how to pass their polygraph tests. And I believe I have answered that question already. As I have said here several times, I can teach anyone how to pass a polygraph test, nervous or not, no matter what! Are you going to keep asking me the same questions over and over?

Question: I may.

Answer: In that case I may have to up my hourly rate because this is getting ridiculous.

Question: And on your website you say you charge $5000 for your personal instruction, correct?

Answer: I charge $5000 if I have to travel to them, but I only charge $1000 if they come to my office.

Question: (I could see the city attorney was getting frustrated and he was shuffling of papers around on his desk trying to figure out what to do next. Finally he'd decided on his next question.) Okay, so by saying that the polygraphs are worthless or they don't count, you stand to earn financial gain correct, in your private business that you run on the Internet?

Answer: Once again counselor, I will repeat what I have said before and that is that, if everyone agreed that the polygraph tests are worthless, I be out of business wouldn't I? Because if I could convince people that they polygraph is worthless, and if everyone agreed they are worthless, they would quit using them. I would not have any financial gain because I would be out of business. And, believe it or not, my goal is to put myself out of business by destroying the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture commonly referred to as a lie detector.

Question: The question is, by saying they're worthless, you stand to get financial gain by teaching people how to beat them correct?

(The city attorney was obviously losing it, he was at a loss as to how to deal with me, and he knew he was not able to catch me in a contradiction or a lie because I was simply stating facts. So he kept asking the same questions over and over again because he didn't know what else to do.)

Answer: I will answer this question one more time, but will object to your referring to what I do as teaching people how to beat the polygraph, again because of what that implies and what you're inferring by that. I do not teach people how to beat a valid instrument. I do however teach people how to pass a polygraph test, and they need this training because just telling the truth only works about 50% of the time. And for most people those are not good enough odds to stake their job, their reputation, or their freedom on.

Question: When you take a position on a police officer case like this, is your position usually on the side of the offended employee?

Answer: What I testify to has nothing to do with the employee; it has only to do with the lack of validity of the polygraph as a lie detector. I am called to testify in the congress, the courts, and in hearings such as this simply because I am the only polygraph expert in the entire world who will actually tell the truth about the polygraph. And in truth and in fact, the polygraph, to use your word is worthless as a method to detect deception.

Question: Well, I'm asking are you retained by the employees’ representatives to provide testimony in the case.

Answer: Not always. I've testified on behalf of the government against one of their employees because one of their employees was trying to use the polygraph test as evidence. The employee’s position was that he had passed his polygraph test, and because of that, he should not be fired. The government, on the other hand, was arguing that the polygraph test results were worthless and should not be admitted into evidence by the employee to prove he was truthful.

Question: Would you say that the majority of the time in a situation like this that you're testifying on behalf of the employee and you been retained by the employees representatives?

Answer: Sure, because that is about the only time the polygraph ever becomes an issue. It would be interesting, and much more equitable, if the officer could require the chief to also submit to a polygraph test to determine whether or not he was being impartial in his judgment as to the validity of the charges against the officer. It would be interesting if the chief failed the polygraph test and was shown to be deceptive on a question about whether or not he has any personal grudge or bias against this police officer. That would be very entertaining for me because it would be a first. Never before in the history of arbitration has a polygraph expert testified for both sides about how worthless the polygraph is. I wonder if I could collect a fee for both sides. (That got a chuckle from the union representative and a quick smile from the arbitrator. So the city attorney decided to change his line of questioning.)

Question: Is it your testimony that during your ten years as an officer that the polygraph was not helpful in your investigations?

Answer: Not at all, it is very helpful in investigations. As a matter of fact it's the best psychological billy club you could ever find. I got more confessions out of that thing that I can count. I even had one guy come back seventeen times until he got so sick of looking at me he finally confessed. Don't you see how helpful the polygraph can be in interrogations? I mean you can get a person into the hands of a highly trained and skilled interrogator to interrogate them as long as you like without attorney sitting there interrupting you and always telling the person not to answer the questions. The polygraph operators will tell you that the subject cannot have any representative in the room with him, that you can't have someone in there interfering with the process; I mean after all, this is a scientific procedure were dealing with here. (My voice dripping with sarcasm, I continued.) I think I have already told you that the polygraph is nothing but an interrogation tool; and that is why they don’t want anyone interfering with their interrogation. Every polygraph school I ever heard about, certainly the one I attended, spent 80% of their time teaching interrogation techniques and then they would say, oh, by the way here's what a polygraph chart looks like.

I remember one incident that occurred when I first got back from polygraph school. I was called out in the middle of the night by the sergeant in charge of the robbery homicide division unit of the detective division. He told me he had a suspect he wanted me to run on the polygraph. I went and conducted a very thorough polygraph examination at the conclusion of which I came out and informed the sergeant that it was my opinion that this person was being deceptive. The big burly Sergeant with a very large cigar protruding from his mouth got in my face and yelled, "Deceptive! Hell yes he's deceptive, why do you think he’s setting here? Now, get your ass back in there and get a confession, that's what you're here for." It took me four more hours, but I did in fact get the confession. So yes, in answer to your question, the polygraph is very helpful in investigations. It is a…..

(The city attorney interrupted me once again, because this was not at all what he expected, and it was certainly not going the way he wished it would.)

Question: Is it….

(This time I interrupted the city attorney.)

Answer: I have not finished. Let me finish, I am answering your question.

Question: I'm not sure you are. I think you're just going off on a tangent rendition.

Answer: No I am answering the question that you asked. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but you asked the question and I am going to answer it.

Question: I ask you if the polygraph was not helpful, and I think you have answered.

Answer: Yes I guess I have. I told you exactly how helpful the polygraph is. It gets confessions, and that is all it is good for - getting confessions. The problem is that not all of those confessions are true, sometimes people confess just to get away from what has been described as torture in the fourth degree. And the use of this torture to glean a confession often results in the case being dismissed, and it makes cops lazy because they don't do a proper investigation when they rely on a confession. Or as in the case of this officer, if he doesn’t confess, he is just called a liar, probably because the Chief said he was a liar.

Question: So is it your testimony that the polygraph doesn't work?

(I was astounded at the stupidity of his question. The city attorney was completely out of his depth, and had no idea what to do with me.)

Answer: I think I have made it abundantly clear that nothing about the polygraph works when you are using it to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive. Let me put it this way counselor, the polygraph when used as a lie detector is a sick joke; because it often brands truthful people as liars, and calls liars truthful. And again, I will repeat what I have said many times here today; the only purpose the polygraph has is to sufficiently scare a person into a confession. And that confession may or may not be of any real value as evidence.

The city attorney said, "That's all I have. The city rests.

The FOP attorney began his redirect examination.

Question: Sir, I asked you earlier about some of the studies you had done, now tell me about some of those other studies. I know you did an investigation for CBS 60 MINUTES, and you did another for PENN & TELLER, but there were some other studies. Would you briefly tell me the names of those?

Answer: I've done a number of investigations which prove that the polygraph is not valid as a lie detector. I have proved that I can teach a person to, using the city attorney's word, beat it, very easily; and that fact alone is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a lie detector. If it really did work, it would be impossible for me to teach anyone to beat it. Most of the television programs I have been on simply show me teaching people how easy it is to learn how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will. I hook them up on the polygraph, show them what to do, and they demonstrate how to produce a reaction on a polygraph chart at will. It is very popular with television producers, because it is such a graphic way to prove what a joke the polygraph actually is; it makes great television. After the demonstration, I am usually interviewed by the host and I explain my opposition to the use of the polygraph as a lie detector. I basically go off on what the city attorney has just called a tangent rendition, whatever that means. I assume it means that I tell all the dirty little secrets about the polygraph and how it is used to coerce confessions out of people. Perhaps the words tangent rendition refers to my explanation of how the polygraph is based on a faulty premise. I explain that the polygraph operator brands a person as a liar when that person has a reaction on a relevant question. I contend that in order for a person to be called a liar when they have a reaction on a relevant question that that reaction must always indicate deception. And therein lies the problem with the premise upon which the polygraph is based; in order for that reaction to indicate deception, it must always indicate deception, and I have testified and proved that it does not. Often that very same reaction can be caused by simple nervousness and not deception. I have been on quite a number of different television programs where I went off on these tangent renditions of my case against the polygraph industry. Thanks to the city attorney, I now have copies of all the pages on my website and I will read from the media page a list of some of the television programs that I have been on. I have been on CBS NIGHTWATCH, NBC Nightly News, CNN, Fox network’s Exploring the Unknown, NBC Dateline, Fox News, CNN News Stand, The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, and even the BBC. You can watch these videos by going to my website www.polygraph.com and clicking on the MEDIA page.

The FOP attorney thanked me for my testimony and told me I was excused from the witness stand.

Chapter 18 – BIG BROTHER IS HERE! AND HE IS REALLY PISSED OFF!

It is now very obvious that the first edition of this book was distributed to just about every polygraph operator on the face of the earth. I have still not achieved my goal of destroying the dangerous myth of lie detection, but I have succeeded in infuriating those who administer these so-called lie detector tests and the government agencies who employ them. Polygraph operators know they can’t win a debate with me, and they know they can’t present any valid reason for their continued use of the polygraph as a “lie detector”, so one man came forward with a desperate plan designed to finally try to stop me for good. This man’s name is John R. Schwartz, and his plan was called OPERATION LIE BUSTERS. Swartz heads the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs Credibility Assessment Division, and according to newspaper reports, he said those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.” There is no doubt that I am the one who has protested the loudest and the longest against polygraph testing, but when did protesting become a felony crime? Why did the Department of Justice decide to go along with Swartz and violate my first and fourth amendment rights and try to throw me in prison for daring to speak out against the abuse caused by the use of the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture commonly referred to as the “lie detector”? I can’t tell you how utterly helpless, hopeless, angry and depressed I was (and still am) when the reality of what the government has done and why they are doing it finally dawned on me.

It is frightening when you consider that at the urging of one vindictive government polygraph operator, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, the CBP, the US Secret Service, the FBI, and many other government agencies would form an armed task force and raid my office; that they could hold me against my will for hours, terrorize my wife and me, search my office and my home, and seize all of my computers, my polygraph instruments and every scrap of information that was of any interest to them. What is even more depressing and troubling is the fact that I was powerless to stop them, and that I have no recourse, no way to call them to account for their blatant violation of my Constitutional rights.

The evolution of how polygraph operators, and the government, have dealt with me has changed drastically in the forty years I have been fighting the abuse caused by the dangerous myth of lie detection. It tells you more about them and the police state that our country has become than it does about me. At first they simply ignored my assertions that I could teach anyone how to pass a polygraph test in ten minutes or less. I think they were hoping that I would just shut up and go away. They didn’t want to respond to me because they didn’t want to do anything that would draw attention to the problems inherent in calling the polygraph a "lie detector". Polygraph operators are much like cockroaches in that they don't like the light of objective scrutiny to be shined on their shady operation. They all know the polygraph is not reliable and effective as a "lie detector”, and they know they can’t prove that it is a valid and reliable means to detect deception or to verify truthfulness. So, when I first came up with the idea of teaching people how to pass a polygraph test and published my little manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, they simply ignored it.

I have been putting on seminars, instructing people on the Sting Technique and giving television demonstrations of how easily a person to control every tracing on the chart for almost forty years. I even testified in the US Congress, and explained in detail how easily a person could be taught to “beat” a polygraph test. I hoped that by doing this so publicly I would be able to drive home the point that the polygraph was worthless as a lie detector. Polygraph operators have always said that the polygraph is accurate 85 to 95% of the time, but all the scientific evidence proves that simply is not true. Polygraph proponents also maintained steadfastly that it was impossible for a person to control the results of a polygraph test and always produce what the polygraph examiner would expect to see from a truthful subject. But I kept proving that both of those claims by polygraph operators were false. The polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin, and the results can be easily manipulated by anyone with just a small amount of training. Polygraph operators then changed the way they responded to me by simply saying that all I was doing was teaching people how to make "distortions" to the polygraph chart. They still maintained that I could not teach a person how to duplicate a "truthful" polygraph chart.

Eventually they recognized that they had to take a different approach to “the problems caused by Doug Williams” because, by the early 80’s, I had been on national television demonstrating how easily I could teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and produce a classic “truthful” polygraph chart tracing by simply following my simple instructions. So they changed their strategy and adopted the position that while it was possible for me to teach a person how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, that these so called "countermeasures" were easily detected. It was then that the word "countermeasures" first began to be used by polygraph operators to describe my Sting Technique. As mentioned earlier in this book, the government polygraph school, under the direction of Dr. Gordon Barland, actually started teaching courses on how polygraph operators could learn to detect the use of the use of these "countermeasures". And as I have also mentioned earlier in this book Barland used my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, as his textbook. After he retired, Barland told me that he was very concerned that polygraph operators were “overly confident in their ability to detect countermeasures". He as much as admitted in one of his e-mails to me that it was impossible for them to tell, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a person was using my techniques to pass their polygraph test.

I have two reasons for teaching people how to pass their polygraph tests: 1) just telling the truth only works about half the time, so if you are going to pass you must learn how to pass, and 2) if I could prove that I could teach a person how to control every tracing on the polygraph chart, and always produce a "truthful" polygraph test result regardless of whether they are lying or telling the truth, that would be prima facie evidence that the polygraph is absolutely worthless as a "lie detector". Polygraph operators know this is the best evidence that the polygraph is worthless as a “lie detector” and it would be all that was necessary to finally destroy the myth of “lie detection” – which is why they refused for many years to acknowledge that so called “countermeasures” actually work.

I knew polygraph operators especially those in the government were very upset with me, and were becoming more and more paranoid and frustrated by what I was doing to undermine the myth of "lie detection". In about 2001, aside from selling my manual and video/DVD on my website www.polygraph.com, I began offering practice tests and what I referred to as personal polygraph test preparation training. And this made polygraph operators even more paranoid and angry than ever!

This one-on-one training is simply a way to help truthful people prove their truthfulness because all the evidence, and, even the government's own statistics, proves that just telling the truth only works about 50% of the time. So I just offer people a chance to come see that they can produce a perfect truthful chart by simply following the instructions in my manual. The training consists of a little relaxation training I call the enhanced mental imagery training where I incorporate a form of hypnosis and train people to relax when they answer the relevant questions. This relaxation training simply involves reciting a hypnotic script I have created and linking it to the relevant questions. I tell the person being trained that in order to re-create the feeling of relaxation that this hypnotic script induces they simply have to label the relevant questions as relevant questions in their mind prior to answering them on the polygraph test. It is amazing how well this works. I have been doing it for a number of years now and everyone is able to overcome their nervousness when answering the relevant questions by simply labeling the questions as the relevant questions prior to answering them because that triggers the subconscious mind into thinking about the beach rather than thinking about the relevant questions. I then hook them up to the polygraph and run three practice tests tailored to their situation. I have the latest computerized polygraph instrument with the latest scoring software and we run three practice tests. At the conclusion of each test I show them their computer generated score and it is always NO DECEPTION INDICATED. I have always maintained, and have proved, that it makes no difference whether or not a person is telling the truth as long as they know how to utilize the "Sting Technique" properly; they will always pass their polygraph test – nervous or not – no matter what!

★★★

In 2013, the polygraph industry took a much more aggressive approach to dealing with me – and with the problems I caused them by continuing to teach so-called "countermeasures". They finally admitted that “countermeasures” were being used, and they spent millions of dollars trying to convince themselves and others that while countermeasures did indeed exist and that they could be used effectively, it was not a problem because polygraph operators could be taught to recognize them. But they were becoming more and more paranoid because they knew that countermeasures did indeed work and that they were in fact unable to determine whether or not anyone was using them to pass their polygraph test. Their paranoia had increased to the point that they began routinely accusing everyone of using countermeasures.

Finally in 2013 their hatred of me and their paranoia of my ability to destroy the myth of "lie detection" by proving that countermeasures were indeed effective and that their polygraph machine was worthless as a lie detector increased to the boiling point, and they began an unscrupulous and unconstitutional attempt to criminalize the teaching of so-called “countermeasures”. They decided that the only way to shut me up was to try to put me in prison! This plan, devised by John R Swartz, was a blatant assault on my rights under the 1st and 4th Amendments called "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS".

Here is how my little part in the John R. Schwartz production of the Keystone Cops’ Kabuki Theater began: At approximately 10:00 AM on February 21st, 2013, I had a personal training session scheduled for a man named "Brian". When he arrived I remember thinking to myself that his demeanor was markedly different than most people who come to my office. Most people are somewhat anxious and apprehensive when they first come in my office. Everyone who takes a polygraph test is very anxious and nervous about the prospect, because they know how much is riding on the results. Regardless of why they are taking a polygraph examination, everyone is fearful that they will be falsely accused of lying because it is common knowledge that well over 50% of honest, truthful people are branded as liars simply because they are nervous. So, most people who come to my office exhibit signs of nervousness and are very anxious about what my training involves. When they first walk into my office, they look around and are mesmerized at the sight of the polygraph instrument on the desk. This was not the case with Brian. When he came in, he barely acknowledged me and did not look at the polygraph instrument at all. He had a very large backpack that he immediately took to the corner of the office where he placed it at an angle facing my desk and the subject’s chair. He seemed overly concerned with the placement of his backpack, moving it back and forth until he got it placed in just the right angle. I remember thinking that this guy must have some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder the way he is working so diligently to place his backpack in just the right spot. And I was very curious about the size of the backpack – it was much larger than any I had ever seen outside the military. In fact it looked much like the large backpack that the military uses. Brian had told me that he was going to fly in and catch a flight out that same afternoon so I knew he would not be spending the night and I remember wondering why he needed such a large backpack for a day trip.

After Brian finished placing his giant backpack in just the right place, he looked up at me standing over him and he seemed to be somewhat confused as to what to do next. Everyone who comes to me has a different story, but they all have one thing in common - they are very frightened and they all hope I can help them overcome their nervousness. Brian did not show any signs of nervousness or anxiety. I thought perhaps he might be on some sort of medication since I had already begun to suspect that he had mental problem.

I always start by telling people that the first order of business is that they give me my fee, I say laughingly that as far as I'm concerned this is the most important part. That usually gets a nervous laugh, and people reach in their pockets or purses for the money. Again, it was different with Brian - he had the money in his front pocket neatly folded in half. I took the money from him and told him to sit down. Again he was different than everyone else because he barely looked at the polygraph instrument. Instead he began looking at all the letters I had on the wall from congressmen, police departments, attorneys, news organizations such as CBS 60 MINUTES, etc. It is quite an impressive display and he was concentrating on trying to read it from a distance of about three feet. It struck me that he was one strange dude. But I started off with my normal speech about the polygraph saying about what I always say – that the polygraph is nothing but an interrogation, and that there are only two types of questions no matter what test you're going to take. Brian interjected that he was taking a pre-employment polygraph examination for Customs and Border Patrol. I told him that I had trained quite a few people for that since it was a fairly recent requirement for the CBP to polygraph applicants.

At some point early on, Brian asked how long the training session would take. I told him about an hour and a half to two hours. He said something about having to catch plane early in the afternoon and that he hoped he would be finished in time to make his flight. That struck me is odd since most people are more concerned about whether I will spend enough time for them to be prepared to pass their polygraph test rather than how quickly we can finish the process. But I had already concluded that Brian was a different breed of cat so to speak so I told him we would be finished in plenty of time for him to catch his flight.

I told him to close his eyes and relax and that I would go through the relaxation therapy that I refer to as the enhanced mental imagery training. He closed his eyes and I went through the script. When I told him to open his eyes he was like everyone else who experiences that training – he was noticeably relaxed. He even let out a big sigh. I then began to explain to him the difference between the relevant and control questions and how the polygraph test is scored and how it is important for him to show a natural reaction on the control questions and to be very relaxed and show no reaction whatsoever to the relevant questions. I then began to review with him the standard pre-employment polygraph examination questions. It was then that he did something that was even stranger than all the strange things he had been doing since he entered my office. He blurted out that he was a sheriff's deputy and he had once smuggled drugs in to the jail, and also that he "got a blow job” from a female juvenile when he was taking her home in his Sheriff's cruiser. I was absolutely astounded at his statement – that was the first time anyone had ever said anything like that to me during a personal training session – and I was also struck by the matter of fact, almost rehearsed way he said it. Before I could even say anything in response, he told me that he was afraid he would lose his job as a deputy sheriff if the CBP told the Sheriff about what he had done. He added that a female sheriff's deputy had been denied employment with the CBP and that she was afraid she was going to lose her job with the Sheriff's Department as a result of what she had admitted during her polygraph test. I was at a loss for words, but I did manage to ask if she had in fact lost her job because of anything the CBP had said to the Sheriff. Brian said that she had not lost her job but that he was afraid he would lose his if they tell the Sheriff about what he had done. I didn't know what to say in response to that, so I mumbled something to the effect that if the CBP had not told the sheriff about what the female deputy had said, they may not say anything about what he tells them either.

I didn't inquire into any more detail about his admissions, but I assumed that since he was more worried about losing his job at the Sheriff's Department than he was about facing criminal charges, that what he was telling me was probably just bullshit. But I could not figure out what could possibly motivate him to say such a thing and then just leave it lay there – and why his only worry was that when he made these admissions to the CBP that they would tell the Sheriff. I also wondered if it had been so long ago that the statute of limitations had run, because he didn't seem to be too worried about it. But I couldn't shake the feeling that he was making it up and I was getting very irritated that he would come in and tell me what such a crazy concocted story. I finally concluded that there was no rhyme or reason to what he was doing and that he was indeed a mental patient. But I couldn't keep from grinning when I thought about what the CBP polygraph operator would say when Brian told them what he had just told me.

I went on with the process and hooked him up to the polygraph and explained to him that all he had to do was to label the relevant questions as relevant prior to answering them and think of something frightening after he answered the control questions. After I had run the test, I showed him his chart. It was not that good, but I was tired of dealing with him and just wanted him out of my office. At one point when I was going over the chart with him I pointed out that he had a pretty good reaction on the control questions. He said something like, “Yeah that's when I was thinking about getting a blow job and smuggling in the drugs.” I said I was tired of his games and pointed down to my side at my Walther .380 automatic. I said something like, “I don't carry this as a prop you know.” I was going to say something like, “I’ll just fire off a few rounds and let's see if that will cause you to have a reaction when you think about that.” But he didn't have the same reaction most people have when I say that. Most people laugh and say something like, “No that's okay I can think of something else.” But Brian reacted much differently, he shouted in a very loud voice, “Don't touch that gun, I am around guns a lot don't touch that gun!”

He repeated his bullshit admission again as though he wanted to make sure I heard what he had to say and he said he was very worried about it and something about being relieved to get it off his mind or something to that effect. I really don't remember much of the dialogue because by now I was beyond irritated I was thoroughly confused and angry that he would come in to my office, act like a fool, and try to play silly games with me. My mind was racing trying to figure him out. I even began to wonder if he was a polygraph operator. I have often thought that some of my "trainees" were actually polygraph operators. It stands to reason that they would be very curious about my training and want see for themselves how effective it was. Perhaps that’s it, I thought, he’s a polygraph operator just pulling my chain and playing head games. But no matter who this guy was, or what his reason for being there was, I was sick of him and his silly games and I was becoming very angry.

As I was removing all the attachments from him I became even angrier. I was sick and tired of his bullshit and ready to get him out of my office. I went around in front of him. He was sitting in the subject’s chair and I got my face down within an inch or two of his, almost touching his nose with mine. I then licked my finger and put the sign of the cross on his forehead. I began acting like a fake crazy priest giving him absolution for his fake bullshit confession. I began gesturing wildly and jumping up and down, saying something to like, “You are absolved of all your sins my son.” I began chanting gibberish, trying to act like I was speaking in Latin and performing some sort of weird exorcism. I began saying nonsensical words like, “Aahmman, conda, speegee, jonga, peesea, leeetaaaa, bushaaa, createee.” I went on like this for two or three minutes with my face very close to his, and watched as his eyes widened with surprise, and to my immense satisfaction began to show signs of terror at the sight of this armed man acting like a demented priest making the sign of the cross, gesturing wildly and yelling like a crazy man. I suddenly stopped, leaned even closer, touched my nose to his and said in a very loud voice something like, “Are you about ready to stop this nonsense and go catch your damned airplane?” Brian nodded his head, and in a trembling voice said, “Yes.” He then quickly grabbed his backpack and bolted out the door.

As soon as Brian opened the door, several federal agents in bulletproof vests immediately charged into my office and handcuffed me. None of these agents identified themselves as to their names or the agencies that they were associated with. But the one who seemed to be in charge of the raid later identified himself as Douglas Robbins U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Special Agent, Office of Internal Affairs, US Department of Homeland Security. Agent Robbins told me repeatedly that I was not under arrest and that if I would cooperate with them and not give them any trouble he would remove the handcuffs. “Are you going to cooperate with us?” As he was saying this he actually reached over and tightened the handcuffs, and the one on my right wrist was so tight that it caused severe pain. I told him, “You're making this very painful by tightening those handcuffs”. He said, “I'll take them off if you promise you will not cause us any trouble and that you will cooperate. I told him, “I'm not going to cause you any trouble but I don't know what you mean by cooperating. I don't even know what you're here for and why I'm being treated like this.” He didn't remove the handcuffs and repeatedly told me that I was not under arrest. He told me that everything could be over with today, saying, “All we want you to do is to cooperate with us”. I told him again it was difficult for me to cooperate with them when I did not know what was happening and why my office was being invaded by armed federal agents in bulletproof vests. I asked him, “If I'm not under arrest, then why am I handcuffed in the first place?” He told me that I was being handcuffed for their protection but that if I would cooperate with them and not cause any trouble he would remove the handcuffs. I repeated again, “I don't even know what you're here for and why I'm being treated like this.”

Agent Robbins then produced a search warrant and pointed to the federal statutes that he said I had violated and that were the basis of this search warrant. These are the statutes that were listed on the search warrant:

Section 1509 Obstruction of court orders

Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime.

Section 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

Section 1001 Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully{MISSING SYMBOL}

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to:

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Section 1341 Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Section 1343 Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(My attorney told me later that this is a real stretch to try to make a case against me using these statutes. And a well-known DC attorney said, “I agree with your criminal counsel. Quite a stretch in every instance and I don't believe intended to be interpreted in that way.”)

★★★

I told Robbins I had no idea that there were even laws like this on the books, but even if they were actual federal statutes I could not possibly understand how I was in violation of any of them. Robbins told me that he had been investigating me for over three years and that he had more than enough evidence to prosecute me. But he again reiterated that I was not under arrest, that I was not charged with anything and repeated his promise that this could all go away today if I would just help them out by looking at a few pictures and telling them whether or not I had trained any of the people in those pictures. He asked again if I would cooperate with them and answer some of their questions. I told him I would prefer to talk to my attorney before answering any questions. He told me that I could not contact my attorney. He picked up my cell phone from my desk and said, “We are confiscating your phone along with all your equipment and anything else that is of interest in your office”. Bear in mind my office is 8X10; it contains two chairs, one desk, one laptop computer, one computerized polygraph instrument with the pneumograph tubes, cardio cuff, motion sensor pad, and GSR electrodes. I also had notes and papers containing questions from previous training sessions.

Robbins continually insisted that it was in my best interest to cooperate with them, but I refused to talk to him and asked again for the third or fourth time for permission to contact my attorney. He again refused to allow me to contact my attorney. Robbins said there was a US Attorney present and that I could talk to him instead. At this point a man who was later identified as Anthony J Phillips, Trial Attorney, US Department of Justice, Public integrity Section, came into the room from where he had been standing in the hall outside. He introduced himself and again told me that it would be in my best interest to cooperate with them and that he would be happy to talk with me and get this matter settled right away. I was in shock, frightened, and humiliated. I said, “You have succeeded in your shock and awe routine with your raid and your handcuffs and all. I am in shock and in awe, but I am not stupid.” I told them, “I know it is illegal for me to lie to a federal agent, and I am greatly concerned that I might inadvertently say something that was not the truth since I have no idea how I could have violated any of the laws you have accused me of violating. “But,”, I said, “one thing I know for sure, I certainly have no intention of talking to a US Attorney, especially when you will not allow me to contact my own attorney.”

Finally after approximately 30 or 40 minutes of them badgering me to cooperate, and me continuing to ask that I be allowed to contact my attorney, they removed the handcuffs and gave me my phone so I could call my attorney, Chris Eulberg. Chris told me not to talk to them and asked to speak to the US attorney who was still present in the room. The US attorney talked to Chris for a few moments and then handed the phone back to me. Chris again repeated that I was not to talk about the case and that he would see me in his office the next day.

Robbins escorted me from the room, telling me that I could not be in my office while the search warrant was being executed. He took me down the hall and he and four or five other agents took turns guarding me while the others kept going back and forth to my office. They kept repeating that I was not under arrest and I said, “If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving.” Robbins told me that I could not leave saying, “We are also executing a search warrant at your house and I don't want you going over there and shooting my agents.” I told him I would never even consider doing such a thing and that I had spent ten years of my life as a law enforcement officer and had nothing but the utmost respect for everyone in law enforcement. He handed me my phone and told me to tell my wife not to go home until he gave her permission to do so. I called my wife Kathy and told her as little as possible about what had happened to me so as not to upset her. But it was obvious she was in great distress. She told me later that she immediately began having heart palpitations, severe nausea, extreme anxiety, and was very ill as a result of this.

Robbins and the other agents held me against my will for 4 1/2 hours while they “searched” my small office. Looking back on it, I think they were trying to come up with some reason to arrest me, but were unable to twist anything that I said to “Brian” into any kind of a conspiracy, or any kind of crime at all. Why else would they take 4 ½ hours to search an empty office? It appears to me, now that I think back on it, that “Brian’s” oversized backpack was probably filled with video and recording equipment – which explains why he was so intent on getting it placed just right so that it could record our session. Also, after he burst into my office, Robbins acted like he was calling someone to tell them to stop “Brian”. Robbins told me that “Brian” was “singing like a bird”. Robbins also took the money that Brian had given me, and that confirmed to me that “Brian” was acting as some sort of undercover agent. And it also confirmed my suspicions about the statements he had made. They were, just as I had thought, nothing but bullshit.

Finally Robbins told me that I was allowed to leave, but that I was not to go to my residence until he gave his permission. I then left and went to my wife Kathy's office and waited until approximately 6 PM. This was seven hours after they first started searching my house. I asked Kathy to call agent Robbins and ask him if we could return to the house. He told her that there were more papers than he anticipated and that it would take more time for them to finish their search. We waited another hour and called him again and he finally said that we could come home in three minutes. When we arrived home we found that they had searched every square inch or our house – they took my computer, all my papers, all my mail receipts, and much more – so much that I can’t even remember what was taken.

The next day we met at the US attorney's office in Oklahoma City and were on videoconference with AUSA Ryan Faulkoner who was in Washington DC. Present at the meeting were myself, my attorney Chris Eulberg, AUSA Anthony J Phillips, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Special Agent Douglas Robbins, and another agent who was present at the raid and search of my office and home. He had never identified himself prior to this time but he gave my attorney gave his card and it identified him as Fred C Ball Jr. Special Agent, Polygraph Examiner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Internal Affairs.

The meeting was a complete waste of time and just another attempt to intimidate me. Phillips began by telling me that it was illegal for me to lie to a federal agent and that these two men, Robbins and Hall, were federal agents so that I would have to be completely truthful when answering their questions. I did not even respond to him, but my attorney Chris Eulberg said, “Why would he talk to you, are you offering him immunity?” Phillips said there would be no immunity, that they had more than enough evidence to prosecute me, that I was being investigated by a grand jury, and he was certain that he would get an indictment against me. Phillips told my attorney that the only thing he could say was that if I cooperated with them; it would help me when I was sentenced. Chris simply said, “No immunity no talking.” And we immediately got up and left.

AUSA Phillips called my attorney shortly after the meeting and told him that he really would encourage him to allow me to talk - that it would be in my best interest, and that he would hate for Chris to deprive me of the opportunity to help myself. Chris told him that he would try to contact me and ask me if I would like to come back up and talk to him, but that he saw no point in doing that. Chris asked me if I wanted to talk to them again and I said I didn't see how that would be in my best interest at all. I also told him that I was a nervous wreck because of all that they had done and that I was in no shape to talk to anyone. Chris called Phillips back and told him that I was not prepared to talk to them again and that I was extremely upset and anxious by all that had happened. Chris told me that Phillips called back at least three more times trying to get me to agree to talk to them.

My attorney filed a motion for the return of my property and two months later, all my property was returned by Agent Robbins. I have not heard from any of them again – at least not yet……. But I have heard that the FBI is still interviewing people from the list of customers they took from my computer. They are telling the people they interview that they “are after Doug Williams”.

It wasn't until sometime later that I understood what all this was about. It was all about OPERATION LIE BUSTERS – the brainchild of CBP polygraph operator John R. Schwartz. It is obvious from what Schwartz has been quoted as saying in the newspapers that “Brian” was an undercover agent from the CBP who was trying to make a case that I had conspired with him to deliberately lie. I have many questions about this. How did my interaction with "Brian" constitute a crime? What did they tell the federal judge to get such a wide-ranging search warrant issued days before they even attempted their sting with "Brian"? Do I have any rights at all under the first and fourth amendments to the United States Constitution? My head is still spinning; I cannot comprehend what is happening to me. In my opinion this is nothing more than a blatant attack on my First Amendment right to free speech and my Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. It is an abuse of power by the government to try to silence my criticism of their polygraph program.

It was much later when I learned the details of this operation from a reporter from the McClatchy Washington Bureau by the name of Marisa Taylor. She had been writing a series of articles about the polygraph and many of them were very critical of the polygraph. She contacted me for an article she was writing about this federal sting operation, but I refused to comment other than to say that I had done nothing wrong. Below are excerpts from Taylor’s article and others. I have also included excerpts from follow-up articles referencing Sen. Coburn's remarks about the government's confiscation of the names of all my customers and the sharing of that information with some thirty different government agencies.

Seeing threats, feds target instructors of polygraph-beating methods

By Marisa Taylor and Cleve R. Wootson Jr.

McClatchy Washington Bureau August 16, 2013

Doug Williams, a former Oklahoma City police polygrapher, says he can teach people how to pass lie detector tests. Federal prosecutors and agents recently targeted him… in undercover stings aimed at cracking down on the teaching of polygraph beating methods.

WASHINGTON — Federal agents have launched a criminal investigation of instructors who claim they can teach job applicants how to pass lie detector tests.

The criminal inquiry, which hasn’t been acknowledged publicly, is aimed at discouraging criminals and spies from infiltrating the U.S. government by using the polygraph-beating techniques, which are said to include controlled breathing, muscle tensing, tongue biting and mental arithmetic.

So far, authorities have targeted at least two instructors, one of whom has pleaded guilty to federal charges, several people familiar with the investigation told McClatchy. Investigators confiscated business records (Doug Williams) which included the names of as many as 5,000 people who’d sought polygraph-beating advice. U.S. agencies have determined that at least 20 of them applied for government and federal contracting jobs, and at least half of that group was hired, including by the National Security Agency.

By attempting to prosecute the instructors, federal officials are adopting a controversial legal stance that sharing such information should be treated as a crime and isn’t protected under the First Amendment in some circumstances.

“Nothing like this has been done before,” John Schwartz, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, said of the legal approach in a June speech to a professional polygraphers’ conference in Charlotte, N.C., that a McClatchy reporter attended. “Most certainly our nation’s security will be enhanced.”

“There are a lot of bad people out there. . . . This will help us remove some of those pests from society,” he added.

The federal government previously treated such instructors only as nuisances, partly because the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven. Instructors have openly advertised and discussed their techniques online, in books and on national television. As many as 30 people or businesses across the country claim in Web advertisements that they can teach someone how to beat a polygraph test, according to U.S. government estimates.

In the last year, authorities have launched stings targeting Doug Williams, a former Oklahoma City police polygrapher. Williams declined to comment other than to say he’s done nothing wrong.

While legal experts agree that authorities could pursue the prosecution, some accused the government of overreaching in the name of national security.

The federal government polygraphs about 70,000 people a year for security clearances and jobs, but most courts won’t allow polygraph results to be submitted as evidence, citing the machines’ unreliability. Scientists question whether polygraphers can identify liars by interpreting measurements of blood pressure, sweat activity and respiration. Researchers say the polygraph-beating techniques can’t be detected with certainty, either.

Citing the scientific skepticism, one attorney compared the prosecution of polygraph instructors to indicting someone for practicing voodoo.

“If someone stabs a voodoo doll in the heart with a pin and the victim they intended to kill drops dead of a heart attack, are they guilty of murder?” asked Gene Iredale, a California attorney who often represents federal defendants. “What if the person who dropped dead believed in voodoo?

“These are the types of questions that are generally debated in law school, not inside a courtroom. The real question should be: Does the federal government want to use its resources to pursue this kind of case? I would argue it does not.”

In his speech in June, Customs official Schwartz acknowledged that teaching the techniques _ known in polygraph circles as “countermeasures” isn’t always illegal and might be protected under the First Amendment in some situations.

“I’m teaching about countermeasures right now. The polygraph schools are supposed to be teaching about countermeasures,” he said. “So teaching about countermeasures in and of itself certainly is not only not illegal, it’s protected. You have a right to free speech in this country.”

But instructors may be prosecuted if they know that the people they’re teaching plan to lie about crimes during federal polygraphs, he said.

In that scenario, prosecutors may pursue charges of false statements, wire fraud, obstructing an agency proceeding and “misprision of felony,” which is defined as having knowledge of serious criminal conduct and attempting to conceal it.

“When that conspiracy occurs, both parties are guilty,” said Schwartz, a veteran federal polygrapher who heads Customs’ polygraph program. “And it makes more sense to me to try to investigate the party that’s doing the training because when you do that, you eliminate dozens or hundreds or thousands of people . . . from getting that training.”

Schwartz, who was involved in the federal investigation, cited the risk of drug traffickers infiltrating his agency as justification for prosecutors going after instructors. However, he told the crowd of law enforcement officials from across the country that he wasn’t discussing a specific case but a “blueprint” of how state and local officials might pursue a prosecution.

Urging them to join forces with his agency, he declared in a more than two-hour speech that “evil will always seek ways to hide the truth.”

“When you identify insider threats and you eliminate insider threats, then that agency is more efficient and more effective,” Schwartz said.

Customs, which polygraphs about 10,000 applicants a year, has documented more than 200 polygraph confessions of wrongdoing since Congress mandated that the agency’s applicants undergo testing more than two years ago. Many of the applicants who confessed said they either were directly involved in drug or immigrant smuggling or were closely associated with traffickers.

Ten Customs applicants were accused of trying to use countermeasures to pass their polygraphs. All were denied jobs as part of Customs’ crackdown on the methods, dubbed “Operation Lie Busters.”

“Others involved in the conspiracy were successful infiltrators in other agencies,” Customs said in a memo about the investigation.

Several people familiar with the investigation said Williams had agreed to meet with undercover agents and teach them how to pass polygraph tests for a fee. The agents then posed as people connected to a drug trafficker and as a correctional officer who’d smuggled drugs into a jail and had received a sexual favor from an underage girl.

Williams, 67, has openly advertised his teachings for three decades, even discussing them in detail on “60 Minutes” and other national news programs. A self-professed “crusader” who’s railed against the use of polygraph testing, he testified in congressional hearings that led to the 1988 banning of polygraph testing by most private employers.

Some opponents of polygraph testing, including a Wisconsin police chief, said they were concerned that the federal government also might be secretly investigating them, not for helping criminals to lie but for being critical of the government’s polygraph programs. In his speech to the American Association of Police Polygraphists, Schwartz said he thought that those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.”

McClatchy contacted Schwartz about his speech, but he refused to comment.

Some federal officials questioned whether people who taught countermeasures should be prosecuted.

Although polygraphers, who are known as examiners, are trained to identify people who are using the techniques with special equipment, “there’s absolutely nothing that’s codified about countermeasures,” said one federal security official with polygraph expertise, who asked not to be named for fear of being retaliated against. “It’s the most ambiguous thing that people can debate. If you have a guy who’s nervous about his test, the easiest way out of it for the examiner is to say its countermeasures, when it’s not.”

The security official described Williams as a “gadfly” who’s known for teaching ineffective methods. Polygraphers assert that one of Williams’ signature techniques produces erratic respiration patterns on a polygraph test. Demonstrating their disdain for his methods, many polygraphers call the pattern the “Bart Simpson.”

“Prosecutors are trying to make an example of him,” the official said. “It serves to elevate polygraph to something it hasn’t been before, that teaching countermeasures is akin to teaching bomb making, and that there’s something inherently disloyal about disseminating this type of information.”

Federal authorities, meanwhile, have concluded that some of the applicants who sought advice on countermeasures and were hired didn’t use the training after all. The list of people who sought out Williams mostly comprises people who bought books or videos but didn’t hire (him) for one-on-one training.

Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University, said laboratory studies he’d conducted showed that countermeasures could be taught in one-on-one sessions to about 25 percent of the people who were tested. Polygraphers have no reliable way to detect someone who’s using the techniques, he said. In fact, he concluded that a significant number of people are wrongfully accused.

Honts, a former government polygraph researcher, attributed the criminal investigation to “a growing institutional paranoia in the federal government because they can’t control all their secrets.”

Russell Ehlers, a police chief in Wisconsin, said he wouldn’t be surprised if federal authorities had scrutinized him. Schwartz cited an unnamed police chief in the Midwest who was “advertising on the Internet that he would like to teach people to pass the polygraph” as an example of someone who should be investigated. In the last several months, Ehlers said, he’s noticed what appears to be internet visitors from the Justice Department checking out his website that advises applicants on how to get a job at a police department.

In his off-duty hours, Ehlers sold a video that discussed countermeasures, but he said he’d recently stopped selling it as a precaution after hearing about the criminal investigation. He said he’d intended it to help “good” police officer candidates pass the test because he thought that innocent people were routinely accused of lying during polygraph tests.

“Imagine you’re a 25-year-old who has dreamed of serving in the field of law enforcement,” he said. “You finally make it, only to find yourself booted out of the hiring process, the result of a false-positive exam result. In my opinion, that’s a real problem, not the sharing of information on countermeasures.”

George Maschke, a former Army Reserve intelligence officer who’s a translator and runs a website that’s critical of polygraph testing, said he also suspected he’d been targeted although he’d done nothing illegal.

Although federal authorities haven’t contacted him, Maschke said he worried that visitors to his site, AntiPolygraph.org, would be targeted simply for looking for information about polygraph testing.

"The criminalization of the imparting of information sets a pernicious precedent,” he said. “It is fundamentally wrong, and bad public policy, for the government to resort to entrapment to silence speech that it does not approve of."

Tish Wells contributed to this article.

Wootson, who works for The Charlotte Observer, reported from Charlotte, N.C.

A key congressional defender of the National Security Agency’s spying programs criticized federal officials Thursday for a separate initiative that collected and shared the personal information on thousands of Americans in an attempt to root out untrustworthy federal workers.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said McClatchy’s report on an effort by a Department of Homeland Security agency disturbed him because it appeared to scrutinize people who had no direct ties to the U.S. government and simply had purchased certain books about how to evade lie detector tests.

“This is really concerning to me,” Coburn told Acting Homeland Security Secretary Rand Beers during a hearing on national security threats. “It looks sloppy on its face in terms of the number of people.”

The senator asked for a briefing on the crackdown, saying he would reserve final judgment on it. But, he added, “It looks to be very inappropriate in the expanse. . .  . This is way overboard.”

McClatchy reported earlier Thursday that federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

Although the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven, authorities hoped to find government employees or applicants who might have tried to use them to lie during the tests required for security clearances. Officials with multiple agencies confirmed that they’d checked the names in their databases and planned to retain the list in case any of those named take polygraphs for federal jobs or for future criminal investigations.

It turned out, however, that many people on the list worked outside the federal government and lived across the country. Among the people whose personal details were collected were nurses, firefighters, police officers and private attorneys, McClatchy learned. Also included: a psychologist, a cancer researcher and employees of Rite Aid, Paramount Pictures, the American Red Cross and Georgetown University.

Moreover, many of them had only bought books or DVDs from one of the men being investigated and didn’t receive the one-on-one training that investigators had suspected. In one case, a Washington lawyer was listed even though he’d never contacted the instructors. Dozens of others had wanted to pass a polygraph not for a job but for a personal reason: The test was demanded by spouses who suspected infidelity.

In the wake of earlier revelations on the NSA’s massive surveillance programs, Coburn has been a vocal defender of the agency’s stockpiling of data related to daily telephone and Internet communications of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. However, in raising concerns about the polygraph inquiry during the hearing, he said, “We need to protect ourselves. But we also need to protect the Fourth and First Amendments.”

Legal experts have told McClatchy that the polygraph inquiry demonstrates how Americans have few legal protections from the federal government’s collection and sharing of personal data when it occurs in the name of national security.

The Supreme Court has held that people who voluntarily turn over information to a “third party,” such as the polygraph instructors, have no expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

While federal authorities acknowledge that the mere teaching of such polygraph-beating techniques is protected by the First Amendment, prosecutors have pursued a novel legal theory in order to seek criminal charges. They assert that instructors who help federal applicants or employees try to hide lies during government polygraph tests are guilty of obstruction.

However, Coburn said that when Americans hear about the polygraph initiative, they’re going to ask, “What did we do wrong?”

“Because we wanted to read a book, now the federal government’s shared all our information?” he said.

One of the reasons for retaining the list of nearly 5,000 names is to help federal agencies detect future security violators, such as the next Snowden. However, it’s unclear how helpful such a list would be in that regard. Snowden underwent two polygraphs for his NSA job but wasn’t found to have used polygraph-beating techniques to pass them, officials familiar with his tests told McClatchy.

Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security agency that led the polygraph inquiry, has declined to comment, citing a criminal investigation. The agency did not respond to McClatchy’s request for comment on Coburn’s concerns. Most of the nearly 30 agencies also have refused to comment for McClatchy’s story. A handful defended their overall adherence to privacy policies.

Americans’ personal data shared with CIA, IRS, others in security probe

By Marisa Taylor

WASHINGTON — U.S. agencies collected and shared the personal information of thousands of Americans in an attempt to root out untrustworthy federal workers that ended up scrutinizing people who had no direct ties to the U.S. government and simply had purchased certain books.

Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

Although the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven, authorities hoped to find government employees or applicants who might have tried to use them to lie during the tests required for security clearances. Officials with multiple agencies confirmed that they’d checked the names in their databases and planned to retain the list in case any of those named take polygraphs for federal jobs or criminal investigations.

It turned out, however, that many people on the list worked outside the federal government and lived across the country. Among the people whose personal details were collected were nurses, firefighters, police officers and private attorneys, McClatchy learned. Also included: a psychologist, a cancer researcher and employees of Rite Aid, Paramount Pictures, the American Red Cross and Georgetown University.

Moreover, many of them had only bought books or DVDs from one of the men being investigated and didn’t receive the one-on-one training that investigators had suspected. In one case, a Washington lawyer was listed even though he’d never contacted the instructors. Dozens of others had wanted to pass a polygraph not for a job, but for a personal reason: The test was demanded by spouses who suspected infidelity.

The unprecedented creation of such a list and decision to disseminate it widely demonstrate the ease with which the federal government can collect and share Americans’ personal information, even when there’s no clear reason for doing so.

The case comes to light amid revelations that the NSA, in an effort to track foreign terrorists, has for years been stockpiling the data of the daily telephone and Internet communications of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. Though nowhere near as massive as the NSA programs, the polygraph inquiry is another example of the federal government’s vast appetite for Americans’ personal information and the sweeping legal authority it wields in the name of national security.

“This is increasingly happening – data is being collected by the federal government for one use and then being entirely repurposed for other uses and shared,” said Fred Cate, an Indiana University-Bloomington law professor who specializes in information privacy and national security. “Yet there is no constitutional protection for sharing data within the government.”

Several people who were on the list not only were stunned to learn about it, but they also questioned how the government could legally collect and share their information when they have no direct link to the inquiry. All of them said they were too nervous to be identified because they feared further scrutiny from the federal government or they didn’t want their names published by the media.

“When it comes to national security, the government has a lot of leeway,” said one Washington lawyer whose husband landed on the list after the lawyer bought a book about how to pass lie detector tests. “But to me, this list raises First Amendment, due process and privacy issues.”

The lawyer doesn’t work for the federal government. The husband is a government employee but isn’t required to take a lie detector test for a security clearance. “I’m concerned this may harm his career even though there’s no reason that it should,” said the lawyer, who added that they planned to ask the government to take the husband’s name off the list. “It’s very alarming and McCarthy-esque in its zeal. To put a person on a secret list because they bought the ‘wrong book’ or are associated with someone who did is overly paranoid."

While the collection of the information likely passes constitutional muster, the federal agencies involved may have violated their own privacy policies by sharing the personal information of people who aren’t government employees, several legal experts agreed.

Some federal security officials also questioned how useful the list would be. Not only are the polygraph-beating techniques unproven, but confirming that they’ve been used is nearly impossible as well, scientists agree. In fact, the polygraph itself is deemed so unreliable that most courts don’t allow the results to be submitted as evidence against criminal suspects.

Officials say that one of the reasons for retaining the list of nearly 5,000 names is to help federal agencies detect future security violators, such as the next Snowden. It’s unclear how helpful such a list would be in that regard, though. Snowden underwent two polygraphs for his NSA job but he wasn’t found to have used polygraph-beating techniques to pass them, officials familiar with his tests told McClatchy. The NSA refused to comment.

Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security agency that’s leading the polygraph investigation, has described it as important in rooting out crooked customs officials at the U.S.-Mexico border. Customs’ internal affairs division launched the polygraph inquiry after identifying 10 applicants who’d received the lie detector training from one of the instructors. Customs then assembled the list of customers’ names earlier this year as a result of court-approved search warrants that remain under seal in the criminal investigation, known as Operation Lie Busters.

Federal authorities acknowledge that the mere teaching of such techniques is protected by the First Amendment. However, prosecutors have pursued a novel legal theory in order to seek criminal charges. They assert that instructors who help federal applicants or employees try to hide lies during government polygraph tests are guilty of obstruction.

One of the Customs and Border Protection internal affairs officials involved in the case has urged authorities across the country to keep track of people who learn the techniques. The methods, known as countermeasures, include controlled breathing, muscle tensing, tongue biting and mental arithmetic.

“You have access to all of this data – all of their financial records, all of their telephone records, all of their transactions . . . ,” Customs official John Schwartz said in a June speech to police polygraphers that McClatchy attended. “Then we can look at that list and determine for ourselves if we are good or not good at detecting these countermeasures.”

Schwartz didn’t return calls about the case. Customs spokesman Michael Friel said that “since the matter is under investigation it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.”

In an email disseminating one version of the list in a spreadsheet, Defense Department official Frank Maietta asked polygraph managers at each agency to check the list for any federal workers or job applicants who might have gotten training.

The agencies included federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency and others such as the Department of Energy and the Transportation Security Administration. McClatchy contacted the federal agencies that received the list from Schwartz and Maietta but most refused to respond to questions, citing the criminal investigation. Several, however, defended their overall adherence to privacy laws.

In the email to the agencies, Maietta, a polygraph official with the Defense Intelligence Agency, described the information as “merely a mailing list obtained from this case.”

“There’s no indication that any of these individuals did anything wrong, actually received hands-on training, took a polygraph anywhere, utilized countermeasures or are with any federal agency," he wrote in the email in May.

Maietta said an earlier request for the same database check resulted in “very few” responses.

“Some of you indicated your agencies would not allow you to share information,” he wrote.

Nonetheless, the search eventually yielded dozens of federal applicants, several security officials with knowledge of the case told McClatchy. As fresh personnel information was gathered, officials updated the lists and circulated them across the government.

However, only a small percentage of the people on the list were employees with security clearances, said the officials, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter. They included one NSA contractor who feared revealing financial problems, a potentially career-ending admission.

Of the several hundred people who might have been linked to the Defense Department, however, a fraction underwent lie detector tests. Also, a portion of them hadn’t worked for the department since the 1980s.

“There was serious effort put into this list but it turned out to be a whole lot of nothing,” said one federal security official with knowledge of the overall effort who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. “Only a handful of federal employees were directly involved.”

Sex offenders appeared on the list, including convicted child molesters who have to undergo post-conviction polygraph testing in some states, officials confirmed. But such offenders generally are monitored by state or local authorities, not the federal agencies that received the list. Federal prosecutors also don’t have the jurisdiction to seek charges related to those offenders.

Many, if not all, of the 4,904 names appear to be customers of an instructor who hasn’t been prosecuted and may never be. Federal agents collected the data in a search of Oklahoma instructor Doug Williams’ computers and business records. Williams, however, has said that he hasn’t committed a crime.

One of the numerous nurses on the list questioned why federal agencies would have a legitimate interest in her personal information. “I’m not a federal employee. I’m a nurse,” she said. The 42-year-old woman declined to say why she’d sought the advice, but nurses are required to pass lie detector tests in some states for their licenses. “This does bother me,” she added about the effort. “My information was supposed to be confidential.”

The Supreme Court, however, has held that people who voluntarily turn over information to a “third party,” such as the polygraph instructors, would have no expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

“It doesn’t seem right to tar people and give them what is a scarlet letter of being likely liars just because they’ve been reading or thinking about beating lie detector tests,” said Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. “But the fact is government agencies have an enormous free zone when collecting and sharing data.”

Even so, it’s not clear under what circumstances various government agencies should continue retaining and sharing information about people whose only connection to the case was a book purchase.

“I think it’s a fair question to ask,” said Stephanie Pell, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “What is the government’s rationale for continuing to retain and share the information once it is established that all someone did was buy a book?”

Others assert that the government clearly overreached. Customs officials recently confronted leaders of the agency’s union about their purchase of Williams’ book on beating lie detectors. Joseph Martin, the president of the Arizona chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union, said his vice president bought the book so the union could urge members not to voluntarily undergo a polygraph, because of its unreliability.

“What business is it of the government’s if we bought this book?” he said. “We have a right to read about lie detectors and tell our members not to take them.”

A customs internal affairs policy allows for the collection and sharing of records on federal applicants and employees, but it doesn’t appear to permit it when it involves people who have no federal government ties.

The Pentagon, however, said disclosures of personnel records for authorized law enforcement purposes were permitted, although it didn’t specifically address the issue of book-buying.

The FBI echoed that reasoning.

“The FBI routinely receives names of individuals from various law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to check previous criminal-history data or any other derogatory information that exists in our records,” bureau spokesman Paul Bresson said, adding, “After processing the names, we supply our results back to the submitting agency.”

The Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations checked the list “to only positively identify Air Force personnel,” spokeswoman Linda Card said. Defense Department policy “requires polygraph technical reports be maintained for a minimum of 35 years,” she said, without elaborating on whether the list could be kept that long.

The Pentagon’s inspector general, which also was involved in the database check, allows for the sharing of personal information of people who aren’t Defense Department employees “when their activities have directly threatened the functions, property or personnel of the Department of Defense.”

Washington attorney Kel McClanahan called that interpretation “quite a reach” in this instance, because people who buy books on beating lie detectors aren’t necessarily a threat. Still, suing the government would be an uphill battle because the Privacy Act of 1974 leaves so much wiggle room for agencies to collect and share personal data for law enforcement purposes, said McClanahan, who handles lawsuits alleging privacy violations.

“Even the most extreme cases of overreach like this are virtually impossible to litigate because of a poorly written law from 1974,” McClanahan said. “This is merely a symptom of the problem.”

(End of McClatchy’s article)

The articles by Marisa Taylor created quite a lot of controversy and many Internet bloggers and Internet news outlets weighed in with their opinions. Below are some excerpts from these blogs and articles.

Read The Wrong Book; Get Tracked By Government

Posted By Mark Horne on Nov 14, 2013

McClatchy has a story today that makes no sense to me. For example here is the first sentence in the second paragraph:

Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests.

It is illegal to teach people how to pass a lie detector test?

I understand that many people might want to lie for criminal reasons, but so what? In many states radar detectors are legal.

Is it illegal now to allow us to know or learn anything that might possibly be used to evade authority? Is this video on escaping high security handcuffs illegal?

How about one on breaking zip tie handcuffs?

Perhaps we are all now being tracked by the NSA for watching these.

Lie detectors are not permitted in court precisely because they are not viewed as reliable. So, if people already know they are unreliable, they should be using other means to find the truth or maintain security. If a lie detector test is the only tool you have you need to re-assess your methods.

It gets even weirder. The story alleges that “authorities” say that “the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven.” So, was this a fraud case?

No, the “authorities” seemed really upset about these “unproven” lessons in polygraph evasion.

Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of (from Doug Williams) who is under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

So if you buy the wrong book or DVD your name, address, social security number, and other information can be taken without your knowledge and shared with the entire Federal alphabet soup.

The reason given for distributing this list was that one of these people might want to apply for a job as a federal employee (an odd response to “unproven” methods). The story reports of no such attempts.

Among the people whose personal details were collected were nurses, firefighters, police officers and private attorneys, McClatchy learned. Also included: a psychologist, a cancer researcher and employees of Rite Aid, Paramount Pictures, the American Red Cross and Georgetown University.

So, basically, if you get curious about how to pass a lie detector test, your name and personal data is given to the NSA and the CIA.

Be honest with yourself right now. Aren’t you just a bit curious about how polygraphs are supposed to work and how someone might foil them? I got interested in this a few years ago while watching Season One of the TV show, Alias. I don’t remember ever googling about it (which I now realize would be like sending the NSA a direct email about my curiosity). But if I had ordered a book on the subject does that mean it would be right for my personal data to be shared among Federal agencies?

According to (Doug Williams), one of the “culprits,” you need to be trained because otherwise you will be accused of lying even when you tell the truth. Polygraphs give false negatives.

Doug Williams has not been prosecuted and says that he has committed no crime. I wonder if that matters any more. “Obstruction of justice”? Seriously? America is getting unrecognizable to me.

Read The Wong Book 2; Enforcement Of National Security Religion?

Posted By Mark Horne on Nov 14, 2013

I’ve never done this before (that I can remember) but I’m offering a follow-up post to my Read The Wrong Book; Get Tracked By Government entry. As I think about what I read, I’m realizing that I (and the McClatchy story) missed the real point here.

The McClatchy piece, written by Marissa Taylor, was understandably centered on the fact that the personal information of thousands of Americans was shared without any real cause among Federal agencies. With the NSA being in the new, thanks to Snowden, this was an important story.

But I think there is a bigger story that needs to be recognized. The entire “investigation” was not about keeping specially trained people from getting away with crimes because they could fake their way past a lie detector test. The real issue is that polygraphs are national security theater for us, the stupid people.

They don’t work.

And if they don’t work, they only exist to intimidate people into telling the truth and to give people a false sense of security so that they trust in government and law enforcement.

The message, remember, (Doug Williams) who is being investigated (see www.polygraph.com), is not that he could train you how to get away with lying. Rather, his message is that, if you are facing a polygraph test, then you need to learn how to make sure you can get away with telling the truth.

Despite the fact that the courts don’t consider polygraphs reliable, it seems there is an entire government culture that depends on them. (Why?)

The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis!

- The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot!

- The man who started the CIA’s polygraph program thought that plants can read human thoughts!

- The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge!

- A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony PhD, and this premier polygraph organization doesn’t consider this an ethics problem!

- The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks — less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?

- The National Center for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites!

- The researcher who developed the U.S. Government’s polygraph test for espionage and sabotage “thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?”

- The National Academy of Sciences concluded that “[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?”

- Ever spy ever convicted all passed the polygraph?

- One of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history passed the polygraph and killed again?

So the federal government is setting people up for insane “obstruction of justice” charges in order to keep the Wizard in power and prevent anyone from pulling back the curtain.

So just like the TSA demanding that we take off our shoes, and many other things, polygraphs are simply national security theater.

It would be interesting to see a study of how often polygraph results are used to confirm what investigators already believe rather than persuade investigators that they were wrong in their suspicions.

Or so it seems to me. The facts mentioned in the McClatchy story make a great deal of sense on this interpretation.

Teach People to Beat a Polygraph? Go to Jail.

Adrian Chen on Gawker - free speech polygraphs insider threat

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, useful in practice mainly because the mere idea of a lie detector test can scare people into telling the truth. This is underscored by the wide variety and seeming effectiveness of anti-polygraph "countermeasures," which can help anyone pass regardless of truthfulness. Now Feds are going after instructors of polygraph-beating technologies, as part of a crackdown on "insider threats."

McClatchy revealed the extent of the polygraph-beating crackdown in an article on Friday. It was spawned in part from a Customs and Border Protection investigation into corrupt employees who had tried to use polygraph countermeasures—some successfully—to infiltrate agencies on behalf of drug smugglers and others. The crackdown is part of the Obama Administration's massive "Insider Threat Program," which uses McCarthy-esque tactics to try to prevent future Edward Snowdens.

Well know polygraph “countermeasure” instructor, Doug Williams, www.polygraph.com, has been subjected to a sting operation in which a federal agent posed as a criminal trying to beat a polygraph.

You would hope that if the government discovered employees and investigation subjects have been beating polygraph tests with a simple manual or class, they'd reevaluate the wisdom of using the tests, not go after the instructors or critics. But that'd be so hard.

Teaching “Polygraph-Beating” now a Federal Crime

NORMAN, Oklahoma – Federal agents investigate a metro instructor who teaches people how to pass lie detector tests. The former OCPD cop has publicly said for more than four decades that the spikes and dips on a polygraph do little to unmask a lie.

Doug Williams spent nearly 10 years as an Oklahoma City police officer, and at the time was in charge of the polygraph internal affairs department. Now, he’s known internationally as the only licensed polygraph tester that has ever told the “truth” about the polygraph.

Williams has appeared on various network news programs over the years including 60 minutes, CBS Evening news, and CNN. But after more than 40 years of teaching polygraph-beating methods, Williams says this is the first time he’s been approached by federal agents.

He thinks he may know why.

“Two or three months ago I wrote this book, and I rubbed it in their face,” Williams said.

William’s book, “From Cop to Crusader” tells his story of the fight against what he calls, the dangerous myth of lie detection.

“And I proved that I can teach a person how to control every tracing on that chart, and the only thing they will see is a truthful chart,” Williams said.

Federal agents have tried to bring Williams in for questioning, but Williams says he’s been advised against it by his attorney.

“I have not been arrested, I have not been indicted, I have not been charged with any crime whatsoever. Period. Ever,” Williams said.

According to a report from the McClatchy Washington Bureau, Williams is one of two instructors who are part of a federal criminal investigation. Williams says the polygraph has been a sham since it was invented nearly 100 years ago.

“They’ve got me scared, but not enough to shut up,” Williams said.

Williams says 65-percent of the time, even after passing a thorough back ground investigation, people are disqualified because they failed a polygraph test.

News9.com – Oklahoma City, OK (The video version of this report is on my website www.polygraph.com on The Crusader page.

"Lie Detector" questioned as federal spending soars

By: Phil Cross, Investigative Reporter

OKLAHOMA CITY - The polygraph is commonly referred to as a "lie detector." Critics of the device say the biggest lie is that it works, while supporters say it's an essential crime-fighting tool.

Federal investigation targets anti-polygraph crusaders.

"It's a joke to call it a lie detector and it's foolish and dangerous for the government and the criminal justice system to rely on it for anything," said Doug Williams who teaches people how to pass a polygraph.

Williams wasn't always the anti-polygraph crusader he is today. He spent the first few years of his career as a police officer who actually ran polygraph exams for the Oklahoma City Police Department. "I knew it was really, really good at getting confessions," Williams said.

The tipping point for Williams came when he listened to private polygraph examiners boast about the number of for-profit tests they ran, and when he discovered he could manipulate the results of a standard exam.

"Basic biofeedback, just calm yourself down on the relevant questions and think of something frightening on the control questions," Williams told Fox 25, "And lo and behold I could control every tracing on that chart."

Williams wrote manuals on how to beat the polygraph and testified before congress to help pass laws banning polygraphs by private employers. However, the exam is still required as a condition of employment by many law enforcement and government agencies.

Williams told Fox 25 the federal government spends $150 million each year on polygraph exams for various agencies that use it as a condition of employment. He says that money essentially funds ways to bypass discrimination laws.

"I have one thing on my bucket list and that is to destroy this industry, this insidious, Orwellian instrument of torture to make everybody quit using it," Williams said.

"In the hands of some guys, some examiners, it's probably not more than chance they get the correct answer," said Bill Brown a former FBI polygraph examiner, "But if you know what you're doing and have the right equipment and you understand what polygraph is, it's extremely reliable."

Brown says the polygraph measures the "fight or flight" response; a function of the autonomic nervous system and uncontrollable. He says people he's tested that tried to control their responses during the test ended up revealing much more than they intended. "It's my belief when you try to manage one the other three are exacerbated, they're made even more emblematic."

"When your mouth says something your mind knows is not so…your mind has to acknowledge it's not so," Brown said. Brown said his research into the polygraph has shown it is a scientifically sound instrument in the hands of the right examiner.

The video version of this is on The Crusader page of my website www.polygraph.com

Polygraph crusader under federal investigation

By: Phil Cross, Investigative Reporter

OKLAHOMA CITY - For the past four decades a former police officer has been fighting the very tool he used on those suspected of crimes. "I literally scared the hell out people with this little machine," said Doug Williams, "But it's not a lie detector."

Polygraph expenses questioned and experts defend their use.

Williams turned from polygraph examiner to polygraph crusader. His testimony before Congress helped end the practice of private companies using polygraphs as a condition of employment.

"They can call you a liar they don't have to offer any evidence whatsoever to back up the allegation there is no appeal from their decision and it's based on a faulty scientific principle," Williams told Fox 25.

Williams has written manuals and conducted training to teach people to beat the polygraph. He says his training can help anyone get over the fear of the machine and produce a perfect result.

"I do not, and will not, knowingly assist anyone to lie or train anyone to lie," Williams said, "But by far the majority of people who are called liars are innocent and truthful people that are falsely branded as liars simply because they are nervous. It has a built in bias against a truthful person."

A recent report by McClatchy Newspapers revealed Williams and another anti-polygraph crusader are under federal investigation for teaching techniques that beat the test.  Williams has not been charged with any crime.

"You have to know that someone is going to take a test and that they are going to take a test in a certain way and they're not going to tell the truth," said Fox 25 Legal Analyst David Slane.

Slane said any investigation would have to prove someone knowingly taught a person to lie with the intention of fooling federal investigators.

That is something Williams says he has never done. Though he makes no apologies about his work to expose what he calls "faulty science." "Liars don't need my training, they can pass easily it's a game to them." Williams said.

Williams said federal investigators should instead be focused on finding the root cause of recent high-profile security leaks. "Get off your ass and go investigate," Williams said, "Do a background investigation; do what they did before they got lazy and relied on this damn thing."

The video version of this is on The Crusader page of my website www.polygraph.com

Polygraphers trigger fear response in Federal prosecutors.

Submitted by Charlton Stanley, (aka Otteray Scribe) guest blogger

Polygraph tests are 20th-century witchcraft.
— Sen. Sam Ervin (1896-1995)

As the Obama administration and the Department of Justice ramps up the crackdown on security violators and leakers, the whole thing has taken a bizarre turn. There is an ongoing criminal investigation of (an) instructor who claims he can teach job applicants how to pass lie-detector tests. Doug Williams, who operates www.Polygraph.com, has not been charged with any crime; at least not yet, but is said to be under investigation. His only public comment was to say he has done nothing wrong.

The criminal investigation has not been acknowledged publicly. What little news that has come out is the claim it is meant to discourage criminals and spies from infiltrating the U.S. government by using so-called polygraph-beating techniques.

Doug Williams business records were seized. The records are believed to include the names of as many as 5,000 persons who sought advice from the two men. The government claims about twenty of those people applied for positions with the government or government contractors. About half of that group was hired, including one or more getting jobs with the National Security Agency (NSA).

Federal officials have adopted a unique and controversial legal theory that teaching clients how lie detectors work and how to pass the test is a crime, and not protected under the First Amendment.

I find this more than curious. By way of full disclosure, I own a voice stress analysis machine and several biofeedback devices. I first became interested in the detection of malingering, dissimulation and outright lying when I was still in graduate school, and have maintained that interest ever since. Some people lie to look good, and some lie to look bad. Some lie and don’t even know they are lying. Some lie when the truth would serve them better.

In this piece, we will take a look at exactly what it is the Feds are talking about. And we will puzzle about why they want to make it a crime for anyone to teach people how the machines work. Or more accurately, don’t work.

Everyone is familiar with anxiety. Hands sweat, voice trembles, breathing may become more rapid, and the heart races. Many times trembling is visible to the naked eye. Anxiety is a fear reaction. Both the polygraph and voice stress analysis take advantage of these physiological reactions to fear, and take measurements of them. The theory behind both machines is that an anxious person will react. Practitioners of polygraphy and voice stress analysis operate on the assumption that telling a lie will result in a predictable and measurable physiological reaction.

Voice stress analysis and the polygraph: A tale of two different machines with a common purpose.

There is undisputed rivalry between both technologies, and even among different manufacturers of the machines about which is “best.” One thing is undisputed among scientists. Both technologies measure stress, and do it rather well. ‘Stress’ is a term borrowed from physics, as is another physics term, ‘tension.’ Mental health professions describe the psychophysiological reaction to anxiety-producing situations as a stress reaction.

If both machines measure stress, then the next question is about detection of lies or truth. This is the problem. None of them does. All these machines are based on the unproven assumption that a lying subject will always be stressed, whereas little or no stress will be present if they are telling the truth.

One of the foremost authorities on the subject of lie detection was Dr. David Lykken, a psychologist and neuropsychiatrist at the University of Minnesota for 43 years. Lykken and his staff did pioneering research in human physiology and behavioral genetics.

In 1991, Dr. Lykken gave the Invited Address to the 1991 Convention of the American Psychological Association, acknowledging the Award for Distinguished Contribution to Psychology in the Public Interest. In that address, he pointed to research over the previous forty years, including his own work and that of others. Dr. Lykken emphasized that science had proven conclusively there is no such thing as a “lie detector.” Dr. Lykken summarized much of the research in his book, A Tremor in the Blood. The media interviewed him many times. He told reporters the same thing each time he was asked the question: This technology is junk science.

This exchange with a reporter from People Magazine was typical of his exasperation with the continued use of the polygraph and voice stress analysis by law enforcement and private industry:

People magazine reporter: “How reliable are the tests?”
Dr. David Lykken: “Half of innocent people fail them. You’d do as well flipping a coin. In particular, people with strong consciences and religious beliefs can be easily made to feel guilt and anxiety.”

One of the problems with any so-called lie detector machine is that no two people have the same stress reaction to any given stressor. Extensive research on psychopaths shows they have little or no anticipatory anxiety. They do not react to threat in the same manner as a normal person. By the same token, some people respond to almost any stimulus as a threat, and everything makes them anxious. One of the things emphasized during my training, was that any form of stress detection system, whether polygraph or voice stress, was useless in cases involving sex. As one experienced polygrapher instructor put it in his lecture, “In our culture, any discussion of sex makes everybody anxious.”

Two Swedish researchers, Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda, published an analysis of VRA (aka Voice Stress Analysis) in the International Journal of Speech Language and Law. Here is the abstract of their paper, verbatim:

“A lie detector which can reveal lie and deception in some automatic and perfectly reliable way is an old idea we have often met with in science fiction books and comic strips. This is all very well. It is when machines claimed to be lie detectors appear in the context of criminal investigations or security applications that we need to be concerned. In the present paper we will describe two types of ‘deception’ or ‘stress detectors’ (euphemisms to refer to what quite clearly are known as ‘lie detectors’). Both types of detection are claimed to be based on voice analysis but we found no scientific evidence to support the manufacturers’ claims. Indeed, our review of scientific studies will show that these machines perform at chance level when tested for reliability. Given such results and the absence of scientific support for the underlying principles it is justified to view the use of these machines as charlatanry and we argue that there are serious ethical and security reasons to demand that responsible authorities and institutions should not get involved in such practices.”

That journal article in the International Journal of Speech Language and the Law pointed out “discrepancies between the claims the producers and vendors make and what their products are capable of delivering.” As a result of that journal article, the authors were threatened with a libel suit by one of the companies making these devices. The journal received similar threats and, rather disappointingly, took the article offline. But hey, this is the Internet age, and stuff has a way of hanging around forever. All the threatened lawsuit and ensuing caving in by the journal did was trigger the Streisand Effect. Here is the full journal article, preserved by the magic of the Internet. It has been published and republished many times, on many sites, including Wikileaks.

In summary, lie detector technology has no known statistical properties with regard to detecting deception of any kind. It has not been accepted as science in the scientific community. The only thing scientists seem to agree on is most of these machines measure stress reactions in humans, and to that extent, they can measure stress in people who feel stress—that’s it. There are too many variables in the psychology and physiology of deceptiveness for reliable data to be measured with any confidence at all.

Peer reviewed articles about detection of deception published in mainstream scientific journals state flatly that no technology invented thus far can be considered a reliable and valid detector of deception. Every “blind” research project has resulted in “inconclusive” findings; that is, the technology has no better results than chance. A caveat: One has to be careful to differentiate between rigorously controlled studies done by independent scientists and published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, and studies sponsored by manufacturers or groups with a financial interest in the outcome. Also, testimonials are not science.

A quick search of the Internet for information on how to beat lie detectors yields a lot of hits. Because of the ongoing government investigation, several online web sites providing this type of educational information have shut down.

So let’s get this straight. There is a junk science out there that does not work, as established by research study after research study over more than a half century. Despite the scientific evidence, the government not only continues to use it, but wants to prosecute critics? One Wisconsin police chief has been quoted as saying he thinks he may be under investigation simply because he has been a public critic of this technology.

I like this observation by California attorney Gene Iredale, as quoted in a McClatchy news article:

Citing the scientific skepticism, [Mr. Iredale] compared the prosecution of polygraph instructors to indicting someone for practicing voodoo.

“If someone stabs a voodoo doll in the heart with a pin and the victim they intended to kill drops dead of a heart attack, are they guilty of murder?” asked Gene Iredale, a California attorney who often represents federal defendants. “What if the person who dropped dead believed in voodoo?

“These are the types of questions that are generally debated in law school, not inside a courtroom. The real question should be: Does the federal government want to use its resources to pursue this kind of case? I would argue it does not.”

What has been established by research is that most of the “positive” results of these devices have been due to the interrogation skills of the examiner and not the machine. Most experienced examiners are skilled at convincing the subject to confess. I have done that myself. This is where claims of success come from. It is called confirmation bias.

As Dr. Lykken said in his famous speech, when raw data from these “tests” are presented to experienced examiners in blind studies, they score no better than chance. There was one case where a suspect was brought into the police station. This was in the 1960s, when the first Xerox machines became available and a lot of people had never seen one. The detectives had some wires and a vacuum cleaner hose which they attached to the suspect. The other ends were tucked behind their brand new Xerox machine. Every time they asked him if he had committed the crime, an officer poked the button on the Xerox machine. Out would come a piece of paper with, “HE’S LYING” in big block letters. The suspect confessed. I suppose that meant Xerox makes a great lie detector machine.

There are several ongoing research studies to see whether the fMRI can detect deception with any reliability and validity. The research is still in its infancy, with no results that can be considered even remotely conclusive enough to meet any legal evidentiary standard.

The criminalization of imparting information that is widely available in this Internet age appears be a dangerous precedent. I would like to hear a clear and unambiguous explanation why teaching someone to “beat” a machine that hard science research over more than a half century has shown to not work, is illegal, and to prosecute them does not violate their First Amendment rights?

The floor is open for discussion.

Federal Official Declares That Anyone Who Speaks Out Against Lie Detector Tests Should Be Criminally Investigated

From the insanity dept

Federal agents have now launched criminal investigations into some instructors who claim they can teach you to beat a lie detector test, all done under the mandate of the war against whistleblowers.

Federal agents have launched a criminal investigation of instructors who claim they can teach job applicants how to pass lie detector tests.

The criminal inquiry, which hasn’t been acknowledged publicly, is aimed at discouraging criminals and spies from infiltrating the U.S. government by using the polygraph-beating techniques, which are said to include controlled breathing, muscle tensing, tongue biting and mental arithmetic.

Methods for how to beat lie detector tests have been around for ages, and they are unreliable to begin with — so much so that many experts and groups have expressed doubt about polygraphs or disavowed them entirely. The National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the Congress Office of Technology Assessment, the American Psychological Association, the Supreme Court — the list of doubters goes on and on, and any discussion of the question inevitably covers the ways people intentionally trick the test, to the point that these methods are practically common knowledge. Even Penn & Teller: Bullshit! in an episode where they taught volunteers how to beat a test on camera. I wonder if these shows should now be investigated as well?

Either way, it seems like a huge stretch to claim that merely teaching potential methods for beating a lie detector should be considered a crime. At the very least, that seems to test the bounds of the First Amendment. It appears that federal agents basically set up a "sting" operation, in which they induced the two people to teach them how to trick a polygraph, and in the process "admitted" to the instructors certain crimes that they were involved in. This sounds a like borderline entrapment. In fact, the report notes that the people who "sought out" the information from the two men who were investigated generally just wanted books or videos -- not the "one on one" lessons the feds set up.

The impact of all of this is creating serious chilling effects just on those who oppose the use of polygraphs in general:

Some opponents of polygraph testing, including a Wisconsin police chief, said they were concerned that the federal government also might be secretly investigating them, not for helping criminals to lie but for being critical of the government’s polygraph programs. In his speech to the American Association of Police Polygraphists, Schwartz said he thought that those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.”

The "Schwartz" quoted there is John Schwartz, a Customs and Border Patrol official who is involved in the investigations. So, yeah, that's a federal government agent specifically claiming that he wants to focus his criminal investigatory power on those who speak out against polygraph testing. If I were to take a polygraph test right now it would note that I'm telling the truth when I say that sounds a hell of a lot like a police state, where federal agents publicly declare that they're going to use their criminal investigation powers to target people who oppose a program they support. Talk about chilling effects and a massive First Amendment violation.

To have a federal official, with investigatory power, who’s already involved in existing investigations flat out say that he wants to target those who speak out, is incredible. That's not the way our government is supposed to work.

From The Going A Bit Far Department…

by Mike Masnick

As becomes obvious, this (investigation of Doug Williams) massively discourages whistle blowing. It massively discourages anyone raising any alarm about programs that might be out of control, for fear that they might be declared a "high risk" person or even guilty of espionage for trying to blow the whistle.

The secret of the polygraph is that their machine is no more capable oftelling the truth than were the priests of ancient Rome standing knee-deep inchicken parts,” says Alan Zelicoff, a physician and senior scientist at theCenter for National Security and Arms Control at the Sandia Labs in Albuquerque, NM. Zelicoff gave us this view in an article featured in the The Skeptical Inquirer.

He writes that the polygraph administrator is a kind of confidence artist or modernday mesmerist who tries to seduce (or scare) his subjects into believing in thepower of the machine to catch them in the most minute inconsistency.

“Thesubject, nervously strapped in a chair, is often convinced by the aura surroundingthis cheap parlor trick, and is then putty in the hands of the polygrapher, whothen launches into an intrusive, illegal and wide-ranging inquisition,” Zelicoffwrites. “The subject is told from time to time that the machine is indicating‘deception.’ It isn’t, of course. And he is continuously urged to clarify his answers, by providing more and more personal information.”At an arbitrary point, the polygrapher calls off the testing, consults the spoolsof graph paper and makes an entirely subjective rendering on whether the subjecthas given a “deceptive response.”

“Everyfirst-year medical student knows that the four parameters measured during a polygraph–bloodpressure, pulse, sweat production, and breathing rate–are affected by anuncountable myriad of emotions: joy, hate, elation, sadness, anxiety, depression,and so forth,” says Zelicoff. “But there is not one chapter–notone–in any medical text that associates these quantities in any way withan individual’s intent to deceive. More importantly, dozens of studies over the past 20 years in psychology departments and medical schools all over the worldhave shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling and lying.”

I could say many things about this investigation, the people involved in it, and how it has caused my wife and me immense mental anguish. But that would give Schwartz and his cohorts too much pleasure. I will simply say this; I mourn the loss of my first and fourth amendment rights. Orwell's 1984 is here, and it is proof that the Constitution is dead when government thugs can violate my constitutional rights to free speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure as they have done. But, frankly I am afraid to say much more for fear of having the awesome power of the criminal justice system punish me for, as Schwartz said, "protesting the loudest and the longest against polygraph testing”. So I have decided to let the people say what they think of this. These are a few representative comments about this whole sordid affair from people who read the articles and blogs that were written about it:

“Nothing like this has been done before,” US Customs and Border Protection official Josh Schwartz said during a speech at the professional polygraphers’ conference, as quoted by McClatchy. “Most certainly our nation’s security will be enhanced. There are a lot of bad people out there…this will help us remove some of those pests from society.” Federal authorities, McClatchy reported, are investigating Doug Williams - a former polygrapher with the Oklahoma City Police Department who wrote a book on the subject

Critics assert that there is simply no crime in teaching methods to defeat the polygraph. Self-proclaimed experts freely advertise their services online, in books, and on television, and have never had the need to hide their services. That is not to mention the First Amendment legal battle over impeding free speech, which government prosecutors would surely face in court.

“If someone stabs a voodoo doll in the heart with a pin and the victim they intended to kill drops dead of a heart attack, are they guilty of murder?” Gene Iredale, an attorney asked McClatchy. “What if the person who dropped dead believed in voodoo?”

“These are the types of questions that are generally debated in law school, not inside a courtroom,” Iredale continued. “The real question should be: ‘Does the federal government want to use its resources to pursue this kind of case?’ I would argue it does not.”

The thing about polygraph exams, is that the only thing reliable is that they are unreliable. The courts typically do not allow polygraph results in as evidence during criminal trials, unless stipulated by both parties to allow the results. There are people on both sides of the fence as to whether they are capable of being able to prove a person is being deceitful and whether the machine can be beat. Law enforcement investigators still use the tests as additional information to further an investigation, just not proof of guilt or innocence. It is even difficult for examiners to try and determine if a person is using countermeasures or is just nervous.

Williams has openly advertised his teachings for 30 years, even appearing on 60 Minutes and other news programs. He is a self professed  ”crusader” against the use of polygraphs, even testifying in congressional hearings in 1988 banning the testing by most private employers.

Federal officials have determined that some of the applicants who sought the advice on countermeasures and were hired, didn’t even use the countermeasures. That tells me that they passed the polygraph and lied about their history of criminal involvement.

A psychology professor, Charles Honts, says that only about 25% of people are able to be taught the countermeasures successfully and be able to use them to defy the machine. Examiners have no way of detecting reliably if someone is using countermeasures and that a significant number of people are accused wrongfully.

The article sites some other examples of the federal government attempting to entice examiners and opponents of testing, to fall for an offer that would constitute a violation of federal law, using different types of sting techniques.

George Maschke, a former Army Reserve intelligence officer and a translator, has a website that is critical of polygraph exams, said this, “The criminalization of the imparting of information sets a pernicious precedent. It is fundamentally wrong and bad public policy, for the government to resort to entrapment to silence speech that it does not approve of.”

★

I believe it’s a crime to intent to commit a crime. If an undercover agent told the man he intended to use the information for a wrongful or unlawful purpose, why are they going after the guy that didn't intend to commit a crime? Arrest the agents as well for entrapment or for intent to deceive. They targeted a man for sharing information available publicly… we need to fix the system not punish those smart enough make a dollar out of fifty cents.

★

The polygraph counter-measures offered absolutely work. I have been in law enforcement for 30 yrs and take polygraphs all the time and not once have I ever been caught. I have done all kinds of things and lied about all kinds of things and never, ever been caught by the box - seriously. The polygraph is BS. It only works on fools who get scared / bullied into admitting stuff during the pre- and post- test interviews.

★

I beat a polygraph test to work at 7-11 in my college years and my younger brother could not. Why and how? I cannot say but we had very similar backgrounds.  Soon after that I read in the newspaper that polygraphs were not going to be used for jobs qualifications anymore because of their un-reliability. They have always been a big joke to me.

★

WHAT?! "[H]e probably will end up in federal prison." You cannot be serious! For verifying yet another time what has already been proven time-and-again and is common knowledge? This is precisely why courts will not allow polygraphs to be entered into evidence. In other words this article is telling me that he will be prosecuted in a Federal Court for disseminating public domain material verifying what the court already knows. What a hoot! This will be thrown out of court, and the judge will be laughing when he does it.

★

The machine has only one good use.......intimidation.

I can tell you from personal experience, the things are almost exactly as accurate as flipping a coin. The people who administer the polygraph tests can and do skew the results. Law enforcement is imposing an enormous lie on the public by insisting that the results are of any use whatsoever. A lot of people in law enforcement go into administering polygraphs because the job is safer, easier, and pays better than being a cop out on the streets. The fact that the money comes from intimidating people, makes no difference to people who have no conscience. ...

★

It has been shown over and over how flawed the polygraph box is and it is clear that law enforcement officials know about it; otherwise why would they be going after those who teach such flaws?

★

Anything that exposes the fraud that the polygraph industry is can't be bad.

★

If polygraph is this easy to beat, it is manifestly unreliable and shouldn't be used.

★

Lie detectors are B.S., plain and simple, Doug Williams showed that well in the Penn and Teller show

★

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the routine American prosecutorial practice of grossly over-charging a defendant, threatening them with many decades of prison, and then offering them a "deal" wherein they'll only get a few years if they "admit guilt".  Such prosecutorial practices are straight-up illegal in most other advanced western democracies, since they amount to little more than coerced confessions. But in America, they're routine.

★

The fact that it is LEGAL for Law Enforcement and others to LIE to you shows that the whole system is faulty.

★

The prosecutor(s) pursuing this ridiculous case need to be exposed for the egregious over-reach that has come to characterize so many DA offices across the country — especially, it seems, those offices nearest to the political power centers.  As a class, prosecutors have been out of control for a couple of generations and have helped turn America into a police state where the overwhelming power of the prosecution is used to usurp due process and bludgeon citizens into plea deals and false confessions to enhance the scorecards of ambitious climbers. To prosecute someone for exposing the flaws in an outmoded and inaccurate investigatory tool is almost criminal.

★

Polygraph testing is well known to be a pseudo-scientific scam, which is why it's not admissible in court. The fact that Federal agencies use this superstitious nonsense for employment screening is the scandal. And then persecuting someone for pretending to 'defeat' it when there's nothing to defeat is even crazier. If any court goes along with this, we'll know for sure that we're a nation of idiots.

★

It certainly did not screen-out Snowden or the Army leaker.

★

Every day, we get another story that sounds like it comes from the Soviet Union rather than from "The Land of the Free."  The extent to which we have already let ourselves become a tinpot security state is appalling. But what's worse is that the habits and apparatus of authoritarianism have already gained such a foothold that it will be extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to stop our slide towards something that looks disturbingly like a latter-day East Germany.

★

As a lie-detector test is pure hokum, shouldn't teaching people to "beat" it be a heroic deed?  And anyway, free speech here. No way is this investigation legitimate!

★

Something as simple as progressive muscle relaxation training (takes all of 5 minutes to learn) defeats a polygraph test. Is the government going to go after all the professions that teach PMR next?

★

The polygraph is a fraud. Not a shred of science to back up its results. Notice that the article doesn't say that the students passed the test, or how many passed. I should say it's because the test is such a fraud you could pass or fail without trying to do one or the other.

★

That's why a polygraph is generally not admitted as evidence in court.

★

If the government told you to roll some dice to determine whether you were guilty of a crime and someone showed you how to roll the dice in your favor, is that cheating?

★

In fact there is very little or no objective scientific evidence that the polygraph works. If anything the data shows it doesn't.

★

The old "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of" argument, eh?

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of: Misuse of information that could ruin my career or my life because of either flawed methodology or corrupt institutional practices or someone having a bad day.

Damned right I want to know how to exploit the weaknesses of any system whose intent is to destroy me! The polygraph is junk. The fact that it can be beaten disqualifies it as a valid method for assessing fact, and no one should ever submit to a polygraph test under any circumstances.

★

Polygraphs aren't admissible for a reason: they're junk science. So, what will the state convict someone for next? Teaching someone how to sound like an astrologer?

★

This is another example of the overreaching of our federal laws, and our Just Us Department that seeks to enforce them.

★

It seems in almost every case they mention, the client would have a legitimate interest in avoiding false positives, which is what the training is arguably geared to accomplish.

★

You should never take a polygraph voluntarily with the police. The scam is that they put you under oath and they will ask questions that they already know (or have a "feeling" they know) the answer to. If they can paint your answer as a lie, they can charge you with lying under oath. As the CIA and the FBI found out, guess who can pass a polygraph with no problem every time? Why sociopaths and psychopaths.

★

If he taught to read a few biblical verses before taking polygraph, then that would be legal. Go figure.

★

The next logical step in this train of thought is that I better be careful what I say or maybe they'll make up a law about me.

★

The next logical step after that would be playing a dirge for the first amendment and all of our other ideals.

★

A polygraph is an ouija board with wires.

★

By attempting to prosecute the instructors, federal officials are adopting a controversial legal stance that sharing such information should be treated as a crime and isn’t protected under the First Amendment in some circumstances. What next jailing people who buy a radar gun at Radio Shack?

★

There are no such things as “lie detectors”. Polygraph machines and their ilk are panic detectors.

★

Dr. Leonard Saxe, who was then at Boston University, did a meta-analysis of all the research having been done on the efficacy of the polygraph for detecting “lies” to further support Dr. Lykken’s contention that the machine measure physiological stress and nothing else. What precipitates the stress in an individual is anybody’s guess.

Abstract

Reviews the literature on field and analog polygraph testing to aid Congressional consideration of efforts by the US Department of Defense to expand use of polygraph tests to large numbers of government employees with access to classified information. It is noted that the validity of polygraph testing has yet to be established. The present review suggests serious problems with both the theoretical rationale underlying use of polygraph tests and the quality of available evidence supporting the validity of such tests. The most serious problem in the development of policy-relevant conclusions about polygraph testing is viewed as the lack of theory to explain the results of testing. Although polygraph tests attempt to use anxiety as an indicator of lying, anxiety has many causal factors other than lying. The validity of control question analog studies is considered in relation to polygraph validity, and the effects of S characteristics, setting, and countermeasures on validity are discussed. (2 p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

★

Using “lie detector” and “reliable” in the same phrase is an oxymoron!

★

The Administration seems intent to prosecute anyone, just anyone except the actual criminals who crashed our economy, war criminals and their accomplices and government officials who lie to Congress. Calling Mr. Clapper. Mr. Clapper…….

★

These prosecutions are IMO malicious and meant to have a chilling effect on the industry. This is more ‘just cause’ by the government -we’re going to do it just cause we can.

There are two issues. On the first I believe the prosecutions unequivocally violate the First Amendment. The second issue is the utility of polygraph testing. The evidence shows they don’t work. They are an example of police using deception to coerce a confession. The machine’s even greater problem though is that far too many police and prosecutors believe they work and led their investigations and prosecutions be guided by dubious results.

★

They are using “obstructing” investigations or something similar as an excuse. Rather like the woman videotaping police from her front porch was arrested for “obstructing” them.

★

Our government has become as evil and dark as anything the KGB ever did.

★

When the government starts charging people with crimes like that you know there’s a whole lot of BS built into the situation. It’s a bogus prosecution and they know it. They’re doing it to cause more fear and because they can get away with it. These government polygraph operators are self-righteous bullies with sublimated sadistic tendencies.

★

Question is, what are we all gonna do about it.

★

Some of the web sites and training operations have already shut down, no doubt out of fear.

★

They don’t even want the topic of reliability to get any public visibility. Prosecutions risk a Streisand Effect. Polygraph tests and the like are pseudo-science and to fire/hire or imprison people based upon their outcomes is a charade of justice.

★

Doug Williams, I applaud your efforts and your work. I would also like to remind people that they have the right not to take a polygraph exam and it would be prudent to exercise that right, even when under police coercion.

★

Obviously this investigation is BS!

★

This is a disgrace. First, it’s a clear First Amendment violation. Second “lie detectors” are bits of lame pseudoscience that don’t work anyway. The fed’s heavy reliance on them in security cases is just further evidence of their incompetence. Also, if you read the creative charges the feds are using here, it’s just more evidence that we need to rein in prosecutorial discretion.

I’m not entirely sure about the applications of the First Amendment here, though it has a long tradition of being applied to many things which aren’t immediately obvious as “speech” in our society. But jumping in to begin investigating – and presumably shutting down – a business which teaches people how to control their body functions during a test sounds like its way over the line.

★

They’s don’t take kindly ta pissy little serfs.

★

Any defiance to authority must be crushed - an old truth, but entirely appropriate to these days. They just validated what I’m sure many think – the polygraph is a scam. Anyhow, I’m sure teaching the Constitution will be outlawed next.

★

The DOJ would like a word with you. Please proceed to room 101.

★

Oh come on, I can beat a polygraph, and so can anyone else with good emotional control who understands how these things work, and how they don’t. Nothing can measure “lying”; all they measure is your emotional response to being questioned and challenged. The only real “trick” is convincing weak-minded people that there’s some magic going on, which is what charlatans and con-artists of all ages have always relied on. Lie detector tests work on the simple minded, the foolish, and the mindlessly compliant, but not on anyone else.

★

If you can beat the polygraph that proves it is unreliable and therefore invalid. Over the years law enforcement has tried hard to persuade us all that polygraphs are valid but as far as I’m concerned they are quackery.

★

I don’t have a lot of confidence in polygraphs. I once had a polygrapher reluctant to pass me because I flat-lined the control questions.

★

“The federal government should not rely on polygraph examinations for screening prospective or current employees to identify spies or other national-security risks because the test results are too inaccurate when used this way. This is from the National Academies’ National Research Council.”

★

There are myriad actions made illegal by the government that would (should) not intuitively be known to be illegal. This gives the government the tools to get around our constitutional rights at the whim of political winds. It is wrong, wrong, and wrong.

★

What the KGB would tell their informants before a CIA or FBI polygraph test: Get a good night sleep. Talk to the interviewer and make eye contact. Don’t be nervous or worry, these things are quackery and only work if you are nervous. Seems to have worked for Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames. They passed polygraph tests.

★

Years ago, while serving in the military, I was randomly selected to take a polygraph. Once I was done, the person who administered the test told me how to beat it. The government’s goons should track that guy down and throw him in the slammer.

★

They are quackery and junk science. Law enforcement only uses them as a tool to extract confessions.

★

Maybe next, the feds will shut down chemistry classes…..explosives, you know. Doctors know how to kill people, no more med schools.

★

We used to live in a free society.

★

We are a lot closer to Orwell’s 1984 than most can imagine. The obvious next step is to attack any company or individual that provides advice on how to keep your computer and voice communications confidential. It’s inevitable under progressive fascism.

★

Penn and Teller did a BS segment on this including how to beat the tests.

★

There’s a good reason the results of polygraph testing are inadmissible in court. Junk science.

I read somewhere a few years ago that a court threw out a challenge to a confession because a polygraph was used to elicit a confession from a moron.

It wasn’t really a polygraph, it was a steel colander put on the suspect’s head that had a wire attached to it that went behind a copy machine. The machine’s paper trays contained sheets of paper with TRUE and FALSE on them, depending on which tray the cops selected.

They got the suspect to confess, supposedly, with this method. Of course, we can’t know if it was a real confession or the guy just felt whipped.

★

How do you ” beat ” something that is voodoo science in the first place, is not recognized by ANY criminal court and is simply a blood pressure test based on a question you ask? What a waste of all kinds of effort on all sides.

★

Urging them to join forces with his agency, CBP Polygrapher John Schwartz declared in a more than two-hour speech that “evil will always seek ways to hide the truth.” How ironic!

★

It strikes me as an outrageous overreach of governmental power to simply start shutting down or locking up the instructors. This is why there is a vast conspiracy of like minded individuals who all want to deceive the public into thinking that the polygraph is effective. This news is just more effort in the furtherance of that conspiracy.

★

This whole investigation is ridiculous! Whatever happened to free speech?

★

As it happens, I know how to pick locks and I’m pretty good at it. What can I say? It’s a hobby. I like puzzles and think padlocks, door locks, etc. are especially fun to figure out and bypass, with the payoff being that sweet little thrill of adrenalin and minor rush of endorphins when the cylinder turns. Mind you, I only open my own or at someone’s express request if they’re locked out of their house or their car or whatever. Anyway, if the feds can charge these guys with felonies for teaching people how to pass a lie detector test, then they could nail me for teaching my daughter how to pick the lock on her apartment door when she locks herself out. Actually, based on the prosecutorial logic at work here, the government can bring the hammer down on anyone disseminating knowledge on any topic the government deems undesirable. That’s a bad road to go down, and things are bad enough as it is.

★

Scary! Plenty of people have been caught up in the police state that the US has become.

★

They made me take a poly for my clearance. They coached me through it, and many of my friends went many times until they passed. WTF IS THE POINT???!!

★

The chief purpose of polygraph tests is to make people who believe technology can solve all our problems. Feel safer?

★

"Yeah, We're Pretty Much Assuming American Citizens Are Terrorists Now."

★

BREAKING: David Blaine arrested in sting operation for allegedly teaching Guantanamo inmates how to endure waterboarding. Seriously, you all are aware that we live in a nation where you can be detained "just because”.

★

How's that Police State working out for you, America?

★

I'm curious. Why wouldn't the 1st Amendment apply here?

★

What a joke; how can you be charged with teaching someone to beat a device that does not even work in the first place? It is like charging someone with a crime for teaching someone how to defeat a Ouija Board. Pathetic.

★

Polygraphs don't detect lies. They detect anxiety. They are very reliable at detecting anxiety. The problem comes in assuming that the root of the anxiety is a lie, rather than worry about some other topic. All lie detection methods rely on anxiety detection, and all have the same flaw.

★

It’s crazy that we use polygraphs for any legal/background check/law enforcement capacity given how they simply don't work. A polygraph cannot tell whether someone is lying. Supposedly it measures physiological responses to true and false statements. The problem with that is that you give off the same "tells" when you’re lying as when you're anxious, upset, angry or any other kind of strong emotion. They’re also subject to interpretation by an operator whose personal bias could cloud results. And finally, they’re easily fooled! A good friend of mine is now a police officer with a large metropolitan PD. He did a BUNCH of drugs in college including hallucinogens (which ban you from jobs in LE) and he had no problem passing a poly by simply controlling his breathing. Its junk science and we should get rid of it.

★

It's absurd that polygraph tests are still standard for hiring in federal and local law enforcement despite how useless they are. It's disgusting that US Attorneys have the unbridled power that they do to twist laws and seek incredibly punitive sentences in order to force people into taking plea bargains for minor crimes (or no crime at all).

★

So shouldn't all of the CIA be going to jail?

★

People who believe that a polygraph can tell if someone is lying or telling the truth are misinformed at best. Of course it is understandable if you are invested in, or part of the hoax. But, really, even the people who use them will tell you (privately of course) that the best they can give you is a really good guess. Hell, I can do that.

★

Funny. As I recall from a National Intelligence graduate course this kind of training is required for NOC's.

★

Look, people are inclined to believe what they want to believe, and cops/prosecutors are no different. Ooooooh! A magic machine that will tell us when people are lying! Daddy, buy us one of those, pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease?!!! We'll be, like, the coolest district attorneys ever! Basically, lie detectors are a fairy tale for cops.

★

I'd like someone to teach me some techniques to make the polygraph MORE accurate if done on me. My biggest fear if I were ever the suspect of a crime would be that a polygraph would say I'm lying when I'm telling the truth.

Polygraph tests don't test for honesty; they test for nervousness, using things like heart-rate and galvanic skin response (the data from which then still has to be interpreted by a human being). To say they are unreliable would be being overly charitable.

★

I can't wait to hear the bizarre arguments the prosecutors will have to make in these cases. Hopefully Doug Williams will fight this to the end.

★

Where are all the idiots who say that "you don't have to worry about surveillance if you're not doing anything wrong"? This is a nice reminder that what is "wrong" can change at any time at the whim of the government.

★

So now they’re just making up whatever fucking laws they want so they can arrest you? Whats next? You there!!! Stop!!! You have been found guilty of thinking!

★

Do you think it is legal to discuss this?

★

If polygraphs don't work, then just get rid of them.

★

Invented by the same guy who invented Wonder Woman...hmm?

★

Darn those pesky Instrugtors.

★

Well thanks for sharing the methods of how to beat the polygraph. Nothing better than an article about stopping a particular thing and teaching it all in the same breath.

★

The polygraph is junk science anyway.  That is one reason the results of polygraph exams are inadmissible in court.  Who knows how many people are misclassified based on junk?

★

No, polygraphs aren’t so much “junk science” as the misapplication of a scientific principle. When people are stressed, their galvanic skin response increases proportionate to the level of stress. Of course, if you hook plants up to galvanometers, you also will discover that they exhibit galvanic responses when stressed—which also increase proportionately with the level of stress. So far as we know, plants have no propensity for truth or falsehoods.

While most people’s stress levels increase when they lie, the stress levels of the most dangerous people rarely increase when they lie. Many of them actually get off on playing people.

★

You can never put the bite back in the apple or the genie back in the bottle. Knowledge can’t be suppressed or unlearned. Invent a better polygraph, or better yet admit it’s a flawed concept. Oh, and quit hiring spies and criminals.

★

Well, geez, your throw up a barrier (a polygraph test) and then are surprised when people try to overcome the barrier to get to the goodies on the other side.

★

It is much more than a barrier. The polygraph is a way to deny employment to anyone they don’t want to hire. And they don’t have to give any reason other than the person has failed the polygraph test. It is a way to circumvent federal law and avoid any charges of discrimination.

★

Question of the day, how can you convict a man for defrauding a fraud? The polygraph does not detect lies, it detects a few bodily changes, and the interpreter interprets the results, pretty much any way he wants to interpret. Honestly, you really believe it can tell you how many times a man cheating on his wife on the Maury show?

★

Even the conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals should have a big problem with this. There is a huge hole being driven by the Government right through the middle of the 1st Amendment.

★

This whole thing is a joke. There is no such thing as a "lie detector." It is an emotion detector. It is inadmissible in court because is it universally recognized as unreliable with the outcome totally dependent not only on the emotional responses of the person being tested, which can range from totally controlled to all over the place, but also on the evaluation and interpretation of the examiner.

★

I think the law should thank this guy for showing them that the lie detector is flawed..... this is all hogwash.

★

I cannot take seriously the "crime" of lying to government officials until it becomes a crime for government officials to lie to us. It's not only the politicians: cops and prosecutors lie all the time to get convictions. Since polygraph results are not admissible as evidence, why is this even a matter for a court of law?

★

All a polygraph does is detect nervousness and the body's reaction to stress. They are worthless, unless you actually think they do detect lies. This man committed no crime.

★

What? Courts are running out of reasons to send people to prisons. What's the difference (other than degree) between this and the radar detector makers?

★

This is another example of overreaching by the Justice Department.  What Doug Williams is doing is nothing more than teaching people how to beat a thousand dollar paper weight that is used to con a confession out of someone. What a bunch of stuff.

★

HOW TO TRICK A POLYGRAPH MACHINE
(ATTENTION: FEDERAL CRIME ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED)

Polygraph machines don't work. Period. Examiners use them to intimidate people into confessing. To do this they lie and manipulate and pressure subjects. So you don't need to "trick the machine." You need to understand that you are being gamed. Do not confess to anything. The examiner will blow it up, rephrase it, write it down in his own words, and you will be banned from an entire class of federal jobs forever. OK, but polygraph results are not admissible in court as evidence because they are unreliable. If polygraph results are unreliable, how can teaching someone how to pass it be a crime?

★

Polygraphs are notoriously inaccurate and are art, not science. The rate of false positives is high. The examiner is critical and most are not very good, leading to subjective and confusing and often wrong results. This sort of prosecution is ill considered even if it is not a good thing for sex offenders to lie ... that's a red herring compared to the many people whose lives are scarred, sometimes forever, by false positive results "interpreted" by examiners who purport to conjure science from the polygraph machine.

★

Anything that exposes the fraud that the polygraph industry is can't be bad....

★

If polygraph is this easy to beat, it is manifestly unreliable and shouldn't be used.

★

The polygraph is a fraud. Not a shred of science in its manufacturing or its results. Notice that the article doesn't say that the students passed the test, or how many passed I should say. It's because the test is such a fraud you could pass or fail without trying to do one or the other. That's why a polygraph is generally not admissible as evidence in court.

★

It seems in almost every case they mention, the client would have a legitimate interest in avoiding false positives, which is what the training is arguably geared to accomplish.

★

This guy's crime seems to be that he tutored undercover agents pretending to be criminals how to pass a phony test. Maybe he should have used a polygraph on his client first.

What I want to know is, "Did the agents dress up in skimpy pseudo hooker outfits when they pulled this scam?

★

They didn't offer him a polygraph test asking whether he did it or not, that's for sure.

★

This isn't justice, but it's what passes for it in 21st century America

Big government slams down a guy whose "crime" is wanting to be free from Big Brother's lie detector tests.

Yes, let's demonize someone who is doing nothing more than exercising his rights. They throw in the "sex offenders beat the polygraph" line to try to marshall public support for the government's latest brand of thuggery.

Leave the guy alone. What has American become that we are being harassed nonstop by our government for exercising our rights as citizens of this supposedly "free" country

★

Anyone who does anything to thwart the Govt is likely to be guilty of some crime. We are finally getting the Govt we all deserve.

★

Our "security apparatus" is becoming more frightening every day. They invent a bogus "lie detector" and then criminalize attempts to prevent its misuse.

★

One of the not so hidden secrets of law enforcement is the farce known as polygraphs, which are for the most part barely more sophisticated than a parlor game for entertainment.  It is not science. It is "art" with huge subjective elements from and depending on the examiner, and a host of other flaws that have been derided and hidden for many years. I've had experience with it for clients and even the polygraph examiners I knew (the good ones) admitted how limited is their utility and how often it is wrong.

★

This is ludicrous. The machines don't work very well. There's nothing magical (or illegal) about teaching biofeedback techniques.

★

Polygraphs CAN NOT tell if you are lying. They only record your BODY's response to a question. Having had one I can tell you the fallacy of 'lie detectors' is that people who are truthful are not nervous. That's why they are not used in court.

★

Lie detector tests do not work at all on sociopaths or psychopaths. The very people you want to detect can easily pass the test.

★

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of the scientific validity of polygraph testing, and despite the report of this article that "there is debate" there is NO scientific debate. You might as well slay a chicken and look at its entrails. The only way it works is if the person taking the test believes that it works and is bullied or manipulated by the test administrator into confessing. Since test administrators are rewarded for getting confessions, many good people have been falsely implicated by these charlatans!

★

I have taken several and have always been taken aback by the arrogance of the "examiners" which is part of the ploy to convince you that they know more than you do and that they will soon know your deepest, darkest secrets. I had a guy on my first one tell me in a dismissive tone - "yeah, I get you guys in here in your expensive suits but in the end I sweat everything out of you." I'd like to see a follow-up article about how these "examiners" are trained and their techniques for eliciting information

★

I’m also surprised that I have not seen the comment yet "well, if you don't have anything to feel guilty about, what's the problem?"

★

These tests are bogus, but the government continues to require them for some clearances, it's stupid. I had an employee who was going for a clearance in her late 20s, she came back in tears because the examiner would not believe that she had never done drugs - she got so rattled she told him about friends that had done so. When she went back again she had a different examiner and he didn't freak her out, she got her clearance.

★

Polygraph as God

As I understand it, the more you believe in the polygraph's effectiveness at seeing inside your soul, the more effective it is as you play your tells under the all-seeing eye. Bit like God watching you disapprovingly. I'm sure there's some correlation, even a fairly decent correlation, but is there any proof of effectiveness?

The UK teaches the scientific process to children at school. This makes it difficult to sell Polygraphs in the UK since one of the first questions asked tends to be "how does that work".

When you realize that it relies on people having responses to a question like a faster heartbeat then you realize that it's just a modern equivalent of voodoo. There is no proof that lying results in an increased heartbeat (and having worked with pathological liars I'm certain that it doesn't!) but even if it did actually work in the first place a statistically significant amount of the population will have done sports to a degree that requires you to learn to control your heartbeat, which screws metrics being used by the polygraph!

I know how to control my heartbeat since it's an essential skill for accurate shooting.

★

In the US they cannot be used in evidence. Yet. But I'll bet they will royally stuff you working for a gov’t job.

★

"US Customs and Border Protection polygraphs about 10,000 applicants a year and credits the technology with uncovering 200 wrongdoers, normally people who have had an association with either drugs or people-smuggling, since the tests became compulsory two years ago."

Is that a 1% success rate? 200 "wrongdoers" over a two year period from polygraphing 20,000 people.

What's the false positive rate and false negative rates?

Polygraphs are at best stress detectors, and for many of these tests it is natural to assume the person being questioned would be stressed. The fact that the US uses them is very telling of the anti-science society in power over there, that is pushing the country further and further behind more agile competitors in the global economy.

★

Lie detectors? Not really.

I held a management position in a company where I handled large sums of cash on a routine basis. Consequently, I had to take a polygraph every six months to make sure I was the kind of person they wanted to continue to employ. Because I was still quite young and the job paid very well, I routinely spent much of my salary on loose women, alcohol and casual drugs. I just wasted the rest of it. At any rate, I passed every polygraph except one. The reason I failed that one was because the person administering the test sprang an unexpected question on me. He asked "Have you ever done anything that you are ashamed of?" I laughed and said "Where do you want me to start?" He said that indicated that I had something to hide. I told management that I thought he was joking and that the test was over when I laughed. I didn't get fired and passed several more of the tests before leaving of my own accord for a better job. Take away: polygraph == snake oil.

★

This is one of the reasons why polygraphs are so insidious; they dress up random noise in the garb of seemingly respectable statistics.

★

I have a hard time understanding exactly what they might have charged the guy with. Teaching someone how to "cheat" a lie detector test doesn't seem to me something that could qualify as illegal in any context.

Where's the evidence for this? Unless he explicitly tells them to lie under oath and they have evidence of it, I wouldn't convict. And I'm the sort who thinks public executions should be brought back as a deterrent.

Teaching countermeasures against polygraph techniques in itself is not explicitly illegal in the US, although the recent case raises questions about the law around teaching polygraph countermeasures.

★

Teaching people to pass lie detector test is illegal? A lie detector test is not even allowed as evidence in court, so what is the real problem? This fascist regime in which we live just can't allow anyone to even hint that they are smarter than the idiots who run everything. I am not a lawyer, but I bet a few carefully placed words could have averted all of this legal infarction.

★

Re: Teaching people to pass lie detector test is illegal?

I thought lie-detector evidence was admissible in American courts. Am I wrong?

★

Interesting Fact: A super shitty side effect of being trained to lie and to spot liars (it's the same training for both skills, you just switch roles) is that you get progressively worse at both. The longer you apply your training the more apt you are to distrust everyone (or think you're fooling everyone). When determining if someone is lying you unconsciously sacrifice your 'gut feeling' and default to examination of physical expressions of fear, nervousness and guilt. It doesn't work well. The moral of the story is that the old grizzled cop who says he "can always tell if someone is lying" can't; at least no better than flipping a coin.

★

Aldrich Ames, Larry Wu-Tai Chin and others have shown how effective the polygraph is for vetting. (sarcasm )

★

I think the whole thing should be excluded from both courts and security screenings.

Investigated for training someone to defeat a non-functional test. At best it is a dubious, and at worst plain "NSA-ism". No wonder we don't trust the police powers too much! Of course, this could backfire if the ACLU joins the case. The whole idea of polygraphs as a test might get thrown out as illegal.

★

Whatever it says on the charge sheet, the actual crime was "making the Feds look stupid". No defense against that, as any counter-argument worsens the offence!

★

I'm a hard right law and order advocate. I have no problems with police lying to catch bad guys. I even support waterboarding in the context of international terrorism.

I would categorically and without hesitation void any and all convictions and suspensions based on polygraph exams. It's no better than putting radium and a detector in a poison gas device and distributing them at random public intersections claiming they are mind readers and will kill those engaging in seditious thinking.

★

Luckily for everyone else, the employee polygraph protection act, (which Doug Williams helped to get passed) prohibits all employers *except* federal agencies from giving polygraph tests. The government exemption was really meant so people could get polygraphed when getting secret clearance and so on, not to go around polygraphing every new hire as they are doing now. Given the current sense of paranoia in the US, and bad job climate, I know that even minimum wage fast food jobs would probably be giving every applicant lie detector tests if they were not prohibited, which would be quite dehumanizing for everyone involved.

★

You're supposed to post your Employee Polygraph Protection Act poster (available free from your local library, agricultural extension office (oddly), courthouse, post office or IRS office, if you're looking for one :) in a "conspicuous place".

Most people put them next to their business licenses, EOO poster and minimum wage poster; somewhere between the janitor’s closet and the Rancor pit where nobody ever goes.

I bet every, or nearly every, business has one posted, somewhere, but nobody ever sees it and wouldn't know they are protected.

★

Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on polygraphs, that is all.

★

The polygraph is just the same as a magicians trick, or a séance etc. Various props and acting are used to condition the subject to believe that lying will be detected, so that when they do lie, their stress levels will go up as a result of the tension build up. Conditioning your society to believe in them as well helps to start the whole process.

★

Thinking that the detector *might* detect a lie, even when they are telling 100% truth, may be enough to increase some people's stress levels and give a false positive.

Other people may find the whole process stressful, regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not, but on occasions manage to calm themselves at all the wrong questions.

Other people may still be worrying more about their last answer, than the current one.

Other people are pathological liars who can sail though any lie without a slightest flicker.

Other people can be totally delusional and think they are telling the truth, when it's entirely false.

The whole process is such complete bullshit and full of holes that it is worthless.

★

Polygraphs are bullshit.

And that's it.

★

You shouldn't compare polygraphs and male bovine waste. Male bovine waste can be used as fertilizer and is therefore beneficial to society.

★

Either way they are crap.. and yes it will never ever work with compulsive or pathological liars my daughter is one, we can catch her 100% red handed (evidence and everything including video) doing stuff she knows she shouldn't (or not doing something she should) and she can look us in the eye and lie so convincingly she actually upsets herself and believes she is telling us the honest to goodness truth, (genetic trait from the sire, he does the same) if you firmly believe what you are saying and doing is right or true then no stupid machine will detect it same as when someone firmly believes "god" made them do it... totally bonkers, but to them, they are not lying so will never be found as such by questioning.

The guy should have denied ever having done anything of the sort, and offered to take a lie detector test to prove he was telling the truth.

★

In the land of the free...

It seems like you can go to prison for just about anything.

★

If he had prefaced his training with... "Should be used only for entertainment purposes" he would have avoided all the heart ache.

★

I really don't understand how it can be just to punish someone for teaching about lie detectors, when the method used to catch him involved lying and deception.

Polygraphs don't work. Any employer that insists on one clearly has fuck all understanding of science and odds are the place is a blame culture based one, rather than solutions based. I'd never work for a place that insisted on them, ever.

★

Example of why polygraphs are useless and truthful people FAIL:

You are anti drugs, like very. One question is "do you use drugs?"~

To which you answer "no". But it’s an insulting question and pisses you off.

Later on the question is repeated. The reaction will be stronger because it’s more of an accusation then.

Mind you, they're a good interrogation tool.

Polygraphs don't work, what's next, jailing a pastor because he prevented "the wrath of god" for someone who cheated on his taxes?

★

Took a test once, never again

Process is like this, at least for a 24 hour retail shop:

1. Run through the list of Yes/No questions, first few are innocuous to get a baseline, no recording.

2. When they ask something like, "Did you ever steal anything?", you admit your transgressions, notes taken.

3. Repeat step 2 until you forget. Feelings of shame and embarrassment (unless you enjoy being a thief).

4. Hook up skin galvanometer, pulse monitor, and one more sensor which I have forgotten.

5. Repeat the question list.

6. When they reach the embarrassing question, they ask, "Besides A and B, have your ever stolen anything?"

7. You think of something else, go back to #6, until you get pissed off, and say "No" even though you did.

8. Feel the sweat squirt into your palms, hear the needles swish, (this was in 1974, mind you), and know you fail the test. Resist punching out the examiner and leave.

The test penalizes people who have good memories and who have consciences. Psychopaths should pass easily, as will Alzheimer patients.

I once advised a young woman who was applying to the FBI. At about step 7 she realized that padding an expense account, although advised by her supervisor to do this, was actually wrong. Good Catholic girl tried to bluff her way past, failed. She later became a successful MD.

Now I've read the CIA doesn't care about your sins, they just want you to confess all and show you trust them with your soul. They can always use a good thief.

★

You're making the fundamental error if you assume polygraphs actually work - they don't.

The only way they do work is when the testee thinks they work.

When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

★

Now you've put all the readers of my tea leaves self-defense newsletter on a watchlist. Thanks!

★

I used this book back in the days to pass the polygraph test in the RCMP recruitment process, and I succeeded. I finally refused the job, but got through all the process pretty easily.

★

It's quite possible someone could 'react' to sensitive questions just out of fear. There's a lot at stake.

★

False positives, not so good--trash a probably innocent person.

★

There is way too much politics involved here. Judges, the humans who get to decide such things, have a significant conflict of interests but will not recuse themselves, and it is unlikely they will rule against their own community's systematic behavior.

★

Apparently the Los Angeles County volunteer sheriff deputies are put through a battery of polygraph tests as a condition to their employment... as volunteers who are... unpaid... We also know of the military employing polygraphs as a precondition to holding a certain job description. I personally would flat out refuse to go through a polygraph as a condition of employment or in any circumstance at all, to which I would be denied said employment with little recourse. Ain't nobody got time for (bullshit like) that!

★

Trouble is, the "polygraphers" in the police department have a vested interest in keeping the bullshit going (it is their livelihood) and have probably talked themselves into believing that it is real via confirmation bias. These asshats unfortunately have the ear of the police captains and the politicians that support them.

★

I do think that it is ridiculous that the government would try to control "methods" of passing the test, especially if those methods were not directly gained through government training (under restricted training...state secrets, etc).

★

That’s not the problem. The problem is that the untrained honest person that does not lie is as likely to fail the polygraph as the untrained dishonest person. Just throwing a dice would be cheaper and as effective.

★

There is no clear, causative relationship between lying and what the polygraph measures. Belief in the polygraph (and I've met folks who are absolutely convinced in their reliability) provides no help in passing one when being truthful, or failing one when lying. It is immaterial.

★

Another thing is the pretense that the polygraph tells whether or not someone is lying. It does no such thing. It is hard to not see this as being the subjective, flawed system that it is, but for those that have a deep psychological and/or political need for it to appear to be objective and accurate it seems to suffice.

★

Everything a polygraph operator tells you IS a lie.

★

"Flawed in principle" is putting it rather mildly. I'd put it as "complete and utter bullshit." Polygraphs are on a level with voodoo dolls. But I suspect that having a heavily subjective (but allegedly Super Scientific) mechanism for generating justification for hounding people you dislike for other reasons is quite useful indeed....

★

Polygraphs work!

They just don't do what you want them to do. They measure, quite correctly, various things -- heart rates, breathing, etc. What is also true is that psychological effects can alter your physical reactions. So there will be patterns due to what is going on in your brain. The non sequitur is that these patterns are automatically connected to lying, or that you can, even in principle, detect lying.
What is left is that the test is an interrogation based on deceit. The deceit is that the device is infallible and that your happiness relies on you complying with the procedure.

★

My understanding is that the false positive rate is so high that it's essentially useless at determining if someone is lying. As others have alluded to, it is the subject's belief that the interrogator with his machine that can somehow determine lies from truth that counts. Since even innocent people accused of a crime and interrogated in this fashion will have high stress levels, the machine itself has absolutely no technical capacity to determine truth or lie. The secret to beating a polygraph boils down to knowing that it's all smoke and mirrors and pseudoscientific BS.

★

Such a realization would put a lot of careers at risk since people all through the law enforcement chain have built their reputation at least in part around polygraphs. It would mean confronting the fact that they used invalid evidence and thus their convictions might be false. It also means people with strong conviction records will have their stats questioned, if not by others then by themselves, and that represent a serious risk to self image (as well as political career).

★

In other words, too much investment in being right to admit being wrong.

★

It isn't a matter of realizing that the polygraph is flawed. The NSA uses the counterintelligence scope poly for all employees; the CIA uses the more invasive "lifestyle" poly, and so on. All of this despite the fact that the inventor of the polygraph was a charlatan, it has been thoroughly debunked by scientific investigation, and all though intelligence people who have sold out their country (such as Aldrich Ames) passed the poly.

★

The importance isn't in its efficacy, but in having something "tangible" to hold on to. The powers that be are like Linus -- they need a security blanket to hold on to and they have seized on the polygraph. When you are in charge of a department that is going to have access to the deepest and darkest secrets, the most politically damaging truths, you want -- as a person in charge -- you *need* for these things to remain secret. You do background checks, have agents investigate backgrounds, interview the person and people they know.

But a clever person can conceal past malfeasance so that it does not come to light during the investigation. All you have from the personal interview is a *subjective* assessment of the person's honesty, truthfulness, and so on. What is needed is something more, something objective, something with a *score* that passes or fails the person being considered for this very sensitive position.

That is where the polygraph comes in. Thanks to the salesmanship of the original charlatan, people who *need* it are willing to overlook the rather glaring flaws and fallacies in its foundation. And once it gets embedded in the government you have bureaucratic inertia keeping it in place. So the security blanket is here to stay. Now more than ever those in power feel a need to have additional assurance that their employees won't turn on them. The demonstrated lack of efficacy in this regard just makes them all the more frantic.

The need to believe the polygraph actually words is tempting and perhaps plays a role in the self-deceit on the part of those who purvey and utilize polygraphs. But it simply isn't true. It *never* works to detect a lie. By coincidence a person may fail the polygraph while lying, but it is just a coincidence. Polygraphs have been studied and debunked.

Polygraphs are less effective than voodoo where if someone brought up in a culture that believes in the efficacy of voodoo has a curse put on them they will become ill (of course, they have to *know* about the curse, but that is part and parcel of how voodoo works). In other words, strong indoctrination can invoke a placebo effect to cause harm. This same effect has not been successfully demonstrated with polygraphs and is implausible given there is no unique, causative mechanism between lying and the physiological effects being measured. And that's assuming there's *any* causative mechanism.

That it's not admissible in court, or has a high false positive rate isn't really a concern for the way most government agencies use it.

That's frustrating when getting or keeping your job depends on getting or keeping a security clearance, but for truly important things your approach makes sense. The difficulty is that false positives are not the only problem with polygraphs; they also give false negatives. Hence depending at all on such a technique gives you a false sense of security. It's CYA at best.

★

When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

I think we should skip the scientific mumbo-jumbo entirely and go back to the old tried and true ways: hot irons applied to the subject's tongue and body.

If it was good enough for great-great-great-grandad...

★

Um, they realize it now. That's why they don't want people reading these books. The emperor has no clothes, so instead of clothing the emperor we just make sure everybody's wearing a blindfold.

★

That's precisely the official thinking about polygraph policy. Ten years ago, a senior instructor at the federal polygraph school floated the idea of criminalizing the public dissemination of information about polygraph countermeasures. I never thought it would come to pass, but it seems a considerable effort is being made.

★

They've known this for a long time. What they're attempting to do is prevent the general populace from becoming aware of this.

★

The basic techniques for fooling a polygraph were published by Doug Williams before I was born. They've never excited attention here in the UK because no one uses a polygraph except as a prop in cheap foreign cop shows (and in spoofs thereof).

When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works. But, they're already well aware of that. Which is precisely why they're taking this so seriously: they cannot allow this knowledge to spread too far and throw the legitimacy of polygraph tests into question.

★

If it was a demonstrably legitimate way to learn if someone's telling the truth, they wouldn't need public perception to prop it up.

★

You are missing the point in a way that is both laughably naive and tragically stupid.

★

The REAL reason the feds are doing this is that it gives them yet another reason they can use to justify arresting someone.

★

Exactly right. The article should be entitled: How to Avoid Failing the Polygraph.

This, of course, is to never allow yourself to be hooked up to this phony machine in the first place.

★

Seizing all his records? That is basically tyranny! And it's robbery as well.

★

Tyranny? No way. This is 'murica, the land of the free. The government was just exercising the freedom it has to seize his stuff.

★

Tyranny? In America?? Gee, you fucking think so?

★

Tyranny? Absolutely!

★

Commies like you have no faith in America. It's not like he had any reasonable expectation of security in his person, papers, and effects or anything, now is it?

★

You know what would be funny? Administer a polygraph test on the people who seized the materials and ask them questions about their motives.

★

Maybe they did the Doug Williams a favor. It seems like they have validated his methods by these actions. Sales should increase.

★

They knew damn well what he was doing before they seized his records, and obviously knew damn well that criminal charges wouldn't hold up in court (either we have a few honest federal judges left, or they were worried about an actual jury of his peers).

On further thought, it's not just that they thought it probably wouldn't stand up in court, but that it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If potential charges were merely iffy, they'd pull the usual trick of charging him with things that could lead to 500 years in prison, and then offer him a plea bargain for 2 years. They figured he'd go for a real trial, probably get outfits like the ACLU on his side, and the government would lose big time. If they could get an 82 year old nun convicted at trial of terrorism and potentially a 16 year sentence, then the possibility of successfully prosecuting this polygraph case must have been somewhere between incredibly improbable and outright impossible. The worst part is they understood that from the beginning.

★

This case proves the day has come in America where the government can (and will) come into your business or your home, collect your things as they see fit, and you can't do anything about it.

Where if they want to, they'll arrest and detain you under secret laws they won't tell you about.

Where they can (and will) spy on everything you do, and use that as evidence against you but refuse to tell you what the evidence is or where it came from (or fabricate another reason to make it look legitimate).

Where your 'rights' are increasingly becoming optional, ignored, or overruled by secret courts.

Where corporations dictate government policy, and their 'rights' are more important than the rights of your citizens.

America has become a country of jack-booted thugs in the night.

America has become everything she ever stood against, and are actively becoming as bad as the tyrants they used to claim to be opposed to.

America is fucked. Truly and deeply fucked.

And, unfortunately, you're exporting this douche-baggery to the rest of the world. And you've collectively decided that our rights are insignificant to your perception of security.

Which means America has become the enemy of freedom and rights in the world, instead of its champion. And that is sad, and very alarming.

★

Welcome to the dystopian future. You may find there is no going back from this.

★

It's unconstitutional is what it is. Those government thugs cannot override the highest law of the land.

★

What about the 4th Amendment? This is a matter of national importance, damnit! We don't have time to let your petty rights get in the way.

★

Now you can be a suspect for owning a book or DVD? Good thing I never bought a copy of the Constitution . . .In retrospect, this would have been a total waste of money.

★

Why? You don't like good fiction?

★

Kinda reminds me of the 'if you are not guilty then you have nothing to hide' logic. Polygraphs are very iffy, the error rate is pretty high, and some people are worried about being caught up in those errors even when they are innocent.

You're expecting that quaint old concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty"? We got rid of that years ago. Back in the 1980s when every employment applicant became a suspected drug addict and illegal alien.

★

Police states suck. That is all

★

In my opinion, it looks like search and seizure without cause of a trade secret (intellectual property) which was used to negatively impact his business. This is a crime.

★

I have blatantly admonished the polygraph as being junk science online for close to 20 years now. I've pointed out how traitors from Ames to Snowden all passed the Polygraph with flying colors. I've also pointed out how there isn't a courtroom in this country that will accept the use of one. I've talked about how the scientific community considers them absolutely rubbish and no better than snake oil. I really can't think of a better way of how to illustrate that security theater is an active danger to this country than by citing the polygraph as example number 1. It makes me wonder if I'm on this list of theirs too...

★

Never, ever submit to a polygraph. It’s the equivalent of turning yourself in to the inquisition for "questioning". The Malleus Maleficarum should be required reading for polygraph examiners if it isn't already.

★

Polygraph isn't science at all. It's an imprecise voodoo.

★

The polygraph is an interrogation device. Nothing more, nothing less. Based on someone's theory that certain measurable physiological responses accompany the human act of lying, it's primary function is to wring a confession out of a suspect the 'authorities' believe is spewing falsehoods from his lie hole. It is not admissible in court for a reason.

★

Its bullshit since it measures that you are under stress. Some people don't get visibly stressed while lying. In fact some people get *calmer* while lying and this is well known. Other people get stressed not because they committed the action but for other reasons (they find it repulsive, are afraid of being wrongly sentenced, whatever). It's bad not just because of the false negatives but because of the false positives as well.

★

The greatest value of the machine is the pure intimidation factor. People in this day and age believe in machines. You tell them that machine is a 'lie detector' which will tell you when they are lying and it could just be a rock with a couple LEDs mounted it would still work on those who believe it will work. If they don’t believe they can lie anymore they won’t be able to, simple as that. The potential for false positives is immense, and the whole thing is closer to voodoo than science, so it's also completely understandable that they aren’t admissible in court. If the feds are relying on these things for their security clearances I fear it's a bad idea for both reasons - false positives and false negatives. A well prepared liar will normally beat this and go right through - a good person who is not lying, but simply upset and stressed out by the process might well 'fail' as well.

★

None of that matters. In fact, the interrogators can completely ignore the actual readings and say you're lying whenever it suits them. The aim is not to determine whether you're lying, it's to manipulate you into making a confession. Polygraph results are not admissible in court, but confessions extracted during a polygraph interrogation are.

★

"He was nervous when we accused him of being a murderer and slaughtering 12 children your honor. His nervousness about the subject clearly shows he was lying about how he murdered those children, obviously an innocent person would be answering in a quite relaxed manner. I say we burn him. BURN HIM I SAY BURN HIM!"

★

People are afraid of losing their jobs if the examiner decides they are being dishonest even if they aren't? It scares the hell out of me that's for sure.

★

Next up: A watch-list of people who have failed to purchase dream-catchers, healing crystals, Ouija boards, homeopathic "medicine," magic 8-balls in the past ten years.

★

Youtube search Doug Williams on Penn & Teller Bullshit: Lie Detectors. It's all explained there.

★

The Constitution used to be important. Now we're just one short step away from national censorship.

★

Haven't you learned the lesson yet? The Constitution is worth jack shit. Politicians don't give a rat's ass about it, even the 9 hoompaloompas in the supreme court don't give a rat's ass about it anymore.

★

Oh no.... first Orwell and now Bradburry is right, too. Wonder when it's Aldous Huxley's turn.

★

Shouldn't there be a watch list of people dumb enough to think polygraph tests are actually useful for anything?

★

These agencies know perfectly well that it doesn't work. They are scared to death that the morons in Congress will find that out, and realize they are wasting billions on useless security theater; theater run by ex-insiders at these same agencies. At that point hell they might even begin to question really fundamental stuff like - is all the nonsensical theater at airports actually doing anything? (answer : NO - as seen in the most recent "scandal" in which sophisticated behavioral detection training costing billions is proven to be completely useless). And from their perspective the even worse possibility that more of them will figure out that all teh 10's of billions a year they spend on NSA, CIA, etc are equally useless. Gathering more and more information just makes the S/N problem worse and actually decreases the chance of detecting anything nefarious - but no one wants to hear that - especially when their livelihood depends on expanding this crap. So they will work very hard to continue to try to suppress and discredit the truth.

★

He did nothing illegal. And now the government has stolen and is distributing his list of customers, seriously damaging his business. Lawyers must be lining up to help him become a millionaire.

★

Against the government? That's so '90s. Nowadays, go against the governments and you will be asked, in order: 1) why do you hate America, 2) are you a terrorist and 3) kindly follow us without trouble.

★

Why is this such a big deal? Polygraph tests cannot be used in courts anyway. So who cares if someone knows how to pass one?

★

Ordinary people have an innate sense of justice. For the majority, laws and punishment should ONLY apply to people directly involved in crimes that directly hurt others. Contrary to what the usual filthy shills tell you, ordinary people most certainly consider DIRECT conspiracy to commit a criminal act to be a criminal act in itself. As a result of this, the view of criminality held by ordinary people is COMPLETE.

★

Governments, 'kings' and ruling elites have a VERY different view of the purposes served by a criminal 'justice' system. For these depraved monsters, everything is about POWER, keeping power, and ensuring the sheeple are kept in their place. Those that rule you care only about building an 'infallible' system that defies 'bottom-up' attacks.

★

The lie detector and airport 'x-ray' machines are part of the same security theatre- giving a 'scientific' legitimacy to the police-state in the minds of far too many sheeple. Of course, the abuse of machines induce a constant state of fear, causing most people to be self-aware of their levels of 'compliance'. If you had a time machine, every black slave in the USA could explain the principle to you. No 'innocent until proven guilty'. Instead, a constant need to prove your compliance, your subservience, and your understanding that under no circumstance are you to challenge any aspect of the authoritarian and unfair system.

I don’t dare say anything more about this criminal “investigation” being conducted on me. But I do have much more to say about these so-called “countermeasures” and about what I will continue to do to fight the dangerous myth of “lie detection” - assuming, of course, that they are not successful in locking me up in the Federal prison.

Chapter 19 – COUNTERMEASURES? THAT’S JUST BULLSHIT!

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.  Go to the MEDIA page of my website www.polygraph.com and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!  You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!

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! In a previous chapter of this book you saw the pathetic attempt by a polygraph "expert" to make a case for the use of the polygraph as a "lie detector".  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".  I have a manual, entitled HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, and a DVD that teaches people exactly how to do this - it is available on the STORE page of my website www.polygraph.com.  I also give practice polygraph tests on my own polygraph instrument to show them how well my technique works - for more information about this, go to the PERSONAL TRAINING page of my website.

I am the only polygraph expert who has ever told the truth about the polygraph, and the truth is, the polygraph is not a "lie detector".  I have been telling the truth about the scam called lie detection for almost forty years now in hopes of destroying the dangerous myth of "lie detection".  Carl Sagan said, "If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth."  I was instrumental in destroying a large part of the polygraph industry by getting most polygraph testing outlawed in the private sector.  In 1988, with the passage of the EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT, administering polygraph tests actually became a federal crime!  Even the U.S. Supreme Court refused to admit polygraph results into evidence, and ironically it was the U.S. Justice Department who argued that the polygraph results were not reliable and should not be admitted into evidence!  I was a member of the Office of Technology Assessment, (an investigative arm of the U.S. Congress), studying the validity and reliability of the polygraph - our report basically said it was worthless as a "lie detector".   I also testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA.  You can read my testimony in another chapter of this book and in the Appendix section. Here is an interesting piece of historical trivia:  When I testified in Congress, I put my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH into the Congressional Record, and the Senators and Representatives distributed more copies of my manual between 1984 and 1988 than anyone has ever distributed - including me! They sent them out by the tens of thousands in response to requests from constituents.  But, there were exclusions written into the law that allowed the government - local state and federal - to continue to use the polygraph. They attempt to justify these exclusions on the grounds that the government needs this tool to protect national security and the law enforcement officials need it to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system.  I have proved the polygraph is not a "lie detector" - the Congress, the Justice Department, the OTA, and all those with any scientific credibility agree with me - so there is no justification for the government to continue to use it on the pretext that it protects our national security or the integrity of the criminal justice system.

It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as "lie detector" - the theory of "lie detection" is nothing but junk science.  It is based on a faulty scientific premise. The polygraph operators have the audacity to say that there is such a thing as a "reaction indicative of deception", when I can prove that "lying reaction" is simply a nervous reaction commonly referred to as the fight or flight syndrome. In fact, the polygraph is nothing but a psychological billy club that is used to coerce a person into making admissions or confessions.  It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for government agencies to rely on the polygraph to "test" applicants, or to conduct any type of investigations relating to national security.  It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for the criminal justice system to rely on an instrument that has been thoroughly discredited to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive, or to use it to guide their investigations in any way - especially when the results cannot even be used as evidence in a court of law!  And it is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for anyone to believe they will pass their polygraph "test" if they just tell the truth!  When you factor in all the damage done to people who are falsely branded as liars by these con men and their unconscionable conduct, this fraud of "lie detection" perpetrated by the polygraph industry should be a federal crime!  The protection provided to some people by the EPPA should be extended to protect everyone from this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!  Shame on anyone who administers these "tests" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!

So, here we have this diabolical dichotomy - the government protects some people from polygraph abuse and perpetrates polygraph abuse on others!   The Congress outlaws the use of the polygraph in the private sector, (and distributes my manuals, teaching people how to pass their tests), the Justice Department argues that it should not be used as evidence in court, the Supreme Courts agrees and refuses to allow polygraph results into evidence, and the OTA issues a report saying all the scientific evidence proves it is not reliable - yet, after all this, many government agencies greatly expand the use of the polygraph to numbers never seen before in the history of the country!

So what explains this schizophrenia in the government?  Why do they outlaw it in one area and expand it in another?   I'm afraid I know - I think President Nixon told us why the government uses it when he said, "I don't know anything about polygraphs, and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people, and that's why I like to use them!"  That mentality regarding the polygraph is the very reason I do what I do!  I educate people about the polygraph so that the polygraph thugs can't use it to scare the hell out of them - and even worse, call them liars simply because they have a nervous reaction on a relevant question!  I teach people how to prove they are telling the truth because just telling the truth really only works about half the time!  A person will probably fail their polygraph test unless they are trained to show the polygraph examiner what he expects to see from a truthful person. I have been asked this question many times:  Can liars use this information to pass just as easily as truthful people?  The answer to that question is YES!  I have no control over who gets the information in my manual and video/DVD.  But let me make this perfectly clear - I assume that people come to me for personal training because they know that just telling the truth only works about half the time.   And, except for frivolous cases such as fidelity testing, or for demonstrations on television programs, speaking engagements and seminars, I will not knowingly teach a person to deliberately lie!   Besides, liars can pass easily whether they have been trained or not. History is full of people who have lied and passed polygraphs with no problem.  Aldridge Ames, the notorious spy, passed many polygraph exams - and he was an active spy when he took (and passed) several polygraph tests!   As a matter of fact there has never been even one spy ever caught by the polygraph! Even the most recent episode with Edward Snowden demonstrates how FOOLISH and DANGEROUS it is to rely on the results of a polygraph test. Snowden passed two polygraph tests, in order to get access to the information he leaked from the NSA. He has since admitted that the reason he applied for the job in the first place was so he could get access to the information he was planning to tell about the NSA snooping program. Snowden not only passed the pre-employment polygraph test, but he also passed the all encompassing, highly vaunted “lifestyle” polygraph test. Snowden passed both polygraph tests, even though he knew at the time he took the tests what he planned to do when he got his security clearance! If that doesn’t prove the polygraph is worthless, what does?

I have often demonstrated how simple it is to "beat the box" on national television programs.  It is true that anyone can use my techniques to pass their polygraph test regardless of whether they are nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what.  I have said that for over 40 years.  I say it in hopes that those who use this instrument will realize that it is not accurate or reliable as a "lie detector" and will quit using it!

By describing my training as "countermeasures" that people use in order to pass a polygraph as a form of cheating, or something used only by liars who are trying to "beat" the "lie detector", polygraph operators are asserting something as a fact that is absolutely false - something that all evidence proves is false; i.e. that the polygraph is accurate, reliable, and effective in detecting truth and detecting deception. All the scientific evidence available proves that the polygraph is none of those things. The polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - in other words it is only able to detect deception approximately 50% of the time. This also means that unless truthful people get prepared to pass the test, over 50% of the time the polygraph con men will brand them as liars just because they are nervous.  A sad irony is that often the people polygraph operators accuse people of using "countermeasures" are those who have no idea what that even means!  As a matter of fact, polygraph operators are now so paranoid that one of the questions frequently asked on the polygraph test itself is if the subject has read my manual.  Many of these unscrupulous jerks will fail or disqualify people just because they are suspected of the horrible Orwellian "thought crime" of educating themselves!  But trying to "catch" anyone who uses the information in my manual and video/DVD to pass their polygraph test is an exercise in futility on the part of the polygraph operator, because everyone who uses the Sting Technique will ALWAYS PASS - and the only thing the polygraph operator will see is a perfect, natural truthful chart!  As a matter of fact, the information in my manual is so effective, (and because the polygraph as a "lie detector" is so ineffective), the information in my manual and video/DVD is considered to be "contraband" - it is actually prohibited by Big Brother polygraphers in the government!  This proves that polygraph operators are today's version of the thugs employed by Orwell's Ministry of Truth! The thugs in the ministry spread a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants – or in the case of the polygraph operators a nervous reaction ALWAYS indicates deception.  Polygraph operators, (and the agencies who employ them), are trying desperately to keep the myth of "lie detection" intact, and will do everything they can to punish anyone who exposes them for the frauds and conmen that they are – as evidenced by the actions of John R. Schwartz and his OPERATION LIE BUSTERS fiasco! If I can prove that I can teach anyone to control every tracing on the polygraph chart at will, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is worthless as a “lie detector”. And Schwartz as much as admitted that I can do just that when he said, “it makes more sense to me to try to investigate the party that’s doing the training because when you do that, you eliminate dozens or hundreds or thousands of people . . . from getting that training.” That is an admission that my training works – it proves that the polygraph when used as a “lie detector” is worthless - and it scares the hell out of him and his fellow con men polygraph operators!

It is bad, (but perhaps understandable, and even sometimes necessary), to use the polygraph as a prop for polygraph interrogators to frighten and intimidate people in order to get confessions or admissions of wrong doing - but it is never acceptable to take it a step further and disqualify applicants, deny security clearances, and revoke probations simply because a person has a nervous reaction on the polygraph "test" or because the polygrapher accuses them of using so-called "countermeasures".  Most polygraph operators and all polygraph associations say that the polygraph should only be used as an aid to guide investigators, and that the polygraph test results should never be the sole determinant of guilt or innocence, or truth or deception, or whether or not a person gets or keeps a job or a security clearance, (see AAPP statement in footnote below) - but the sad fact is, that happens every day to thousands of people.  That fact alone should be the basis for malpractice lawsuits against polygraph operators!  Polygraph operators are out of control - they no longer abide by the commonly accepted protocols agreed upon by their own professional associations - they don't answer to anyone, and they don't give a damn about the millions of people who are traumatized, and whose lives are ruined by their arbitrary and capricious actions.  That is not only wrong, it should be illegal!

Wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems?  One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EPPA passed into law.  But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph.  In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system".   The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass.  Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"?  Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed?  Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)?  And why do they insist on continuing to use it?

After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

Now back to the so-called "countermeasures". I have always said that I do not teach countermeasures simply because of the negative connotations associated with the term. I teach people how to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying simply because they happen to have a nervous reaction on the wrong question. The late Professor David T. Lykken, who was the preeminent scientific expert on polygraphy, observed "If I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven, (techniques taught in my manual HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH), rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent (person) has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing.  And those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette."  When the EPPA was enacted into law, the word "protection" was not put in the title of that law by accident.  It was put there deliberately because the legislators in their wisdom knew that people needed to be protected from this unreliable instrument, and that they needed to be protected from being falsely accused of lying simply because they were nervous.  So if you're going to take a polygraph examination and, as Dr. Lykken said, you have a 50% chance of failing just because you're nervous on the wrong question it would only be prudent to utilize my training so as to mitigate the danger of being accused of being deceptive when in fact you are simply nervous.

So, I don't use this word "countermeasures" to describe what I do.  As I said, that is a word that is misused by polygraph operators.  All I do is educate people about the polygraph and teach them how to control every tracing on the polygraph charts so as to always produce what the polygraph examiner expects to see from a truthful subject.  Since many people do not have the protection afforded by the Employee Polygraph PROTECTION Act, they must have some way to protect themselves from being falsely branded as liars!

For almost 40 years, I have been crusading against the use of the "lie detector" and the abuses caused by what its inventor, Dr. John Larson, described as "Frankenstein's Monster".  This is what Larson said about his own invention: "The lie detector is nothing more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting a confession as the old physical beating were.  I'm sorry I ever had any part in its development."  I would like nothing better than to stop my crusade.  I would love to shut down my website and quit - my goal has always been to put myself out of business.  My fervent hope, a hope shared by millions of polygraph victims, is that the day will soon come when no one will need my services because the polygraph is no longer being used.  I am tired of this never ending, and very frustrating fight - and I will be happy to quit the day after all the polygraph operators quit running their scam!  But I can't give up yet - I still get far too many calls and emails from people telling me how the polygraph has ruined their lives.  I started this crusade in 1979 and I plan to finish it.  You can help me in my fight by sending this book to as many people as you possibly can!  As long as the thugs and con men who call themselves polygraphers continue to use the so called "lie detector" to frighten and intimidate people, I will continue to fight them!  I am committed to this fight - I must continue to help people who are faced with what is the most traumatic experience they will ever have to endure, because I am the only one who can and will do it.  Until the polygraph is no longer being used, and people's lives are no longer being ruined by this myth of "lie detection", I will teach people how to protect themselves from being falsely accused of being a liar. And I will continue to prove that the polygraph, when used as a “lie detector”, is nothing but a scam that should be outlawed!

Footnote:  The American Association of Police Polygraphists:  "Polygraph testing, forensic psychophysiology, and credibility assessment, are evolving fields of science, intended to be used as decision support tools.

Chapter 20 – THE BATTLE CONTINUES…

I have fought this fight for many years, and I will continue to fight using the tools I have always used: Education, Litigation, and Legislation. Let me leave you with some suggestions on how you can help in the fight if you are so inclined.

ATTORNEYS:

I encourage you to file malpractice lawsuits against polygraph examiners. The definition of a malpractice lawsuit as I'm sure you know is a breach by a member of a profession of either a standard of care or standard of conduct. The typical malpractice suit will allege the TORT of negligence by the professional. Negligence is defined as conduct that falls below the legally established standard for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. Under negligence law, a person must violate a reasonable standard of care. Typically this has meant the customary or usual practice of members of the profession.

Now consider this, when a person submits to polygraph conducted by a polygraph professional and that person is falsely accused of lying, or of using countermeasures, then the burden of proof is on the polygraph professional to prove that person was deceptive or that they had employed some sort of countermeasures to beat the test. In order to prove malpractice, you as an attorney must simply show that in calling a person deceptive or accusing them of using countermeasures the polygraph professional has violated a reasonable standard of care by deviating from the customary or usual practice of members of this profession. In other words, to prove malpractice, you would simply have to prove that the person was falsely accused of deception or using countermeasures when an analysis of their polygraph chart would normally be scored as truthful. Polygraph examiners are required to carry a large amount of liability insurance and it would be nice for some of their victims to be compensated when falsely accused of deception by these self-proclaimed polygraph professionals.

Many polygraph examiners routinely accuse people of using "countermeasures" on their polygraph tests. As a matter of fact the polygraph industry is so paranoid that they now see me hiding behind every bush. They even ask questions about me on every polygraph they administer. And, in my opinion, it is evidence of malpractice when they falsely accuse a person of deception cause them to suffer damage by falsely accusing them of using "countermeasures" when I have no proof to back up that accusation.

I am available as an expert witness – you may contact me through my website www.polygraph.com.

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES:

If you are already a government employee or a civilian contractor, and if you are accused of using “countermeasures”, and you are damaged as a result, i.e. loss of security clearance, or loss of employment - do not admit to using “countermeasures” even if you have! Instead, take action - get a good attorney and file a malpractice lawsuit against the polygraph examiner! Have your attorney contact me if he has any questions as to how to proceed. There is no way the polygraph examiners can prove the use of “countermeasures”!

Even Dr. Barland, the retired head of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, who I referred to earlier in the book, said this in a recent email he sent to me: “I bought your manual this morning and read the adjustments you’ve made in your advice. One of the things that troubles me about the profession today is their overconfidence in their ability to identify many types of countermeasures.” Perhaps since Dr. Barland is retired, he can now tell the truth – and in this email he all but admitted that no one can identify the “countermeasures” I teach in my manual!

Barland, in this same email, goes on to say, “While I was at DoDPI, I conducted a series of CM studies on people who were trained to beat the test (along with control groups who had not given any instruction). After I retired, I requested permission to publish the results, but the government declined to declassify them.” I know the reason the government refused to declassify them – it is simply because they have no proof! They can’t identify “countermeasures” and they know it! That is why they try so hard to get people to “confess” to using them! Again, let me make this point – the mere fact that they admit that people can control every tracing on the chart at will by using “countermeasures” is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a “lie detector”! A sad irony about this is that by far the majority of people who are accused of using “countermeasures” , or who are called liars, have never even done anything but be naive enough to believe that all they had to do was to tell the truth and they would pass.

And if you are damaged by being accused of failing a polygraph test, sue the polygraph examiner! Polygraph examiners themselves have said that the polygraph should never be the sole reason for termination.

UNIONS:

Unions representing employees in the federal state and local governments must become more aggressive in fighting the polygraph when negotiating union contracts and drafting legislation they must do a better job at protecting their members from the abuse of the polygraph. Several years ago Claude Hart, executive director of the Texas State Troopers Association, went to the Texas state legislature to get a bill passed that would outlaw the use of the polygraph in internal investigations of troopers. I testified in the Texas state legislature in support of that legislation, and we were successful in getting a law passed which prohibits the use of the polygraph in internal investigations of Texas state troopers. Some states have great laws that protect employees from polygraph abuse, but more needs to be done in this area – other police and federal law enforcement unions need to follow Mr. Hart’s example and get more pro-active on behalf of their members in the fight against the polygraph.

On my website www.polygraph.com I have included a copy of the employee polygraph protection act which should be expanded to cover all federal state and local employees. If you need me to help you with educational seminars, or drafting legislation, or testimony in arbitration hearings contact me through my website www.polygraph.com.

FIDELITY TESTING:

Finally, anyone who even considers utilizing a polygraph examiner to test for infidelity in a relationship should pay close attention to the PENN & TELLER show about lie detectors on my website www.polygraph.com. That program demonstrates the absurdity of such a test for fidelity in a relationship and the damage that can be done as a result. This program was a graphic and dramatic example of how a polygraph operator can twist a person’s words and thereby destroys that couple's relationship by taking statements out of context and attributing to them the worst possible motives.

NEVER TAKE ANY POLYGRAPH TEST WITHOUT GETTING PREPARED FOR IT FIRST!

If you think there is even a slight possibility that you will be subjected to a polygraph examination, regardless of the nature of the test you must educate yourself prior to taking it. The latest revised edition of my manual and video/DVD is available on my website www.polygraph.com. Before you take any polygraph examination you should study this manual and watch the video/DVD very carefully, and then call or email me with any questions.

You will, no doubt, have been told to stay away from my website and warned not do any research on the polygraph before your test. You will also have been told to not do anything to try to prepare for the test. Why would they tell you that? Because they know you will be able to pass if you get prepared and they know that they will not be able to intimidate you into making damaging admissions because of your fear of the polygraph test. They know my technique works; that is why they are so afraid. They know you will beat them at their own game if you know how it is played. REMEMBER – OVER 60% OF HONEST, TRUTHFUL PEOPLE ARE CALLED LIARS ON THE POLYGRAPH TEST JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NERVOUS. And also be aware that the polygraph operator’s only job is to get you to confess to something. You must protect yourself from these con men or they will destroy you! GET PREPARED OR YOU WILL WISH YOU HAD! Think about it – what other test would you take without preparing for it first?

And, if you possibly can, I would strongly urge you to take advantage of my personal polygraph test preparation training. This training consists of one-on-one instruction in the sting technique, and includes my enhanced mental imagery training which incorporates a form of hypnosis that makes it impossible for you to have any reactions to the relevant questions. Your practice tests will be administered on my new computerized polygraph instrument equipped with the latest scoring software. I administer at least three practice tests using the very same questions that you will be asked on the real test and you will produce at least three perfect charts, scoring NO DECEPTION INDICATED, before you leave my office. For more information about this training, go to my website www.polygraph.com.

THE EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT

The EPPA provides a great deal of protection against the abuse of the polygraph in the private sector. A copy of this law can be found on my website www.polygraph.com. Anyone in private industry who is asked to take a polygraph examination should study this law very carefully.

ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT!

It is time to put a stop to this insanity and stop using the one hundred year old polygraph machine as a tool for “lie detection”. In fact, it is way past time. But it seems almost impossible to destroy this myth of lie detection, this Frankenstein’s monster.

Clowns like those on daytime TV; Maury, Dr. Phil, and others have taken up where F. Lee Bailey and Jack Anderson left off. They are all pumping up the propaganda and promoting the myth of lie detection; doing all they can to keep Frankenstein’s monster alive and well. But thankfully there are others in the media (see MEDIA CLIPS on my website www.polygraph.com) who are telling the truth about the “lie detector” and the truth is, as PENN & TELLER have shown, the so-called “lie detector” is nothing but BULLSHIT!

I have done everything I can think of, and will I keep trying. Perhaps, this story will help bring attention to the problems caused by this terrible industry and more people will join the fight...perhaps somehow, someday, it will be stopped....perhaps....someday everyone will know about the dangerous myth of “lie detection” and Dr. Larson’s “Frankenstein’s Monster” will be killed.

Appendix

*Below is the copy of my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH. It was first published in July, 1979. I revised it in July of 1985, and this is the version that was entered into the Congressional record to support my testimony in the US Congress in support of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act on July 39th, 1985. WARNING! DO NOT TRY TO USE THIS OUTDATED METHOD TO PASS YOUR POLYGRAPH TEST. GET MY REVISED MANUAL AND VIDEO/DVD – THE TECHNIQUES I RECOMMEND TODAY ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES DESCRIBED HERE. If you are going to take a test, go to my website www.polygraph.com and get PROPERLY PREPARED with the most up-to-date information!

My name is Douglass Gene Williams, and I plead guilty to crimes against humanity. I was a right-wing terrorist; I tortured thousands of people, documented more forced confessions than most Gestapo Agents, violated countless constitutional rights, and had absolutely no regard for human dignity. I was often rewarded for my skillful use of terrorism—there are some truly grim stories behind those official letters of commendation I earned as a police detective sergeant. I was a highly trained, well-equipped, terrorist agent, my specialty was psychological trauma, and my weapon was the lie detector.

You have a right to know a little about me before you invest any more of your time, so let me tell you right up front, I'm crazy. Friends and enemies alike agree with my self-diagnosis, they differ only as to the cause of my obvious malady. Some say I was crazy because I quit the cops after eight years' service, and they have a point because I did spend a lot of time and energy preparing for a career only to abandon it when I reached the prime earning years. Others will tell you I cracked under the strain of a guilty conscience and that I went over the edge running from the ghosts of my many victims. There is some truth in that because I do feel guilty about what I did. The way I see it, I lost it when I decided to try to make restitution for my sins, but I'm from the buckle on the Bible Belt, and out here we are taught that if we sin we must confess and make restitution before we can expect exoneration - this restitution business is driving me nuts!

I was so naive, I really thought I would just write a few letters, appear on a few radio and television shows, expose the polygraph to the light of public scrutiny, and bingo, the damn thing would be outlawed and banned forever, a fate it so richly deserves. I reasoned that since I was able to terrorize people with the polygraph only because they believed all the lies I pumped into them about how it works, I could make restitution by telling the truth about the lie detector. To date, I have been a guest on over twenty radio talk shows, I have been featured in dozens of
television, radio, and newspaper interviews, and I have testified in legislative committees, I have spoken at colleges and universities, put on seminars, and given personal instruction to thousands of people. It's embarrassing, people are starting to say I'm
obsessed, and having undergone the introspection necessary to write this, I agree. I am obsessed with this crusade against the polygraph or I would not have continued so long in the face of so much flack. It amazes me how difficult it is to stop the use of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.

For the past seven years, I have attacked the use of the lie detector, using the weapons of education, litigation, and legislation, yet, the size and power of the polygraph industry has increased massively since 1978, President Reagan has expanded its use to unprecedented proportions, (five million federal employees), there are major set-backs on every front, but the war goes on, and I am in for the duration.

My crusade, or as others have called it, the quixotic adventures of a mad-man, began when I wrote a manual to assist in training my sister to take her first polygraph test. The manual as later printed, and the underground circulation is now approaching a million copies. While I have yet to recover the cost of printing the original two thousand, there are rewards in other areas, for example, I really feel good when I can remove the fear people have of the lie detector. I value those one-on-one experiences I have when I take my polygraph and my manual and explain the lie detector "hokus pokus" to people. I ask them to remember their initial feelings for the machine before we begin, and to compare them with how they feel twenty minutes later. The feeling I get when I watch their faces as their attitude toward the polygraph changes from fear, anxiety, and apprehension, to scorn, relief, and elation, is motivation enough for me to continue. My preacher poppa used to say, "It's not much pay, but its cash". Granted, my poorly written manual and my one-man polygraph show are woefully inadequate to the task of overcoming the fifty years of propaganda dispensed by the polygraph industry, but the manual is the only one of its kind ever written, and to my knowledge, I have the dubious distinction of being the only licensed polygraph examiner to ever "blow the whistle". My problem is I can't figure out where to blow the whistle! If you wanted to report the atrocities involved in lie detector testing, and expose it for the sham that it is, to whom would you report? I have "reported" my information to people and organizations as diverse as President Reagan, The Playboy Foundation, James Baker III, Richard Hauser, Jack Anderson, CBS 60 Minutes, various chiefs of police—both city and state, Phil Donahue, The National Examiner, The U.S. Congress, The Office of Technology Assessment, CIA, FBI, NSA, . . . the list goes on, and is growing daily.

On the litigation front, there has been some activity in the quest for judicial relief. Justice is a very expensive commodity nowadays, something many polygraph victims have thus far been unable to afford. However, there is power in numbers, and class action lawsuits might buy a little "justice for all". I suggest talking to your attorney about getting a restraining order against your local polygraph examiners; this puts the burden of proof on them to prove the machine actually works as a lie detector. You might also consider going as a group to solicit his assistance on a class action law suit alleging mal-practice on the part of the polygraph examiner; you can show damages as the loss of jobs, reputations, freedom, (there are millions of victims of this machine). You should also advise your attorney that most polygraph examiners carry massive amounts of liability insurance. Watch your local newspaper for the lawsuit being filed near you, or file your own small claims action for less than twenty dollars.

The legislative front is the most promising at this writing, but after over seven years of fighting, I try not to get my hopes up too high. The Honorable Jack Brooks, U.S. House of Representatives, has been a champion of polygraph victims for a number of years, and has reintroduced H.R. 4681 as H.R. 39 in yet another attempt to bridle President Reagan's enthusiastic expansion of the government's polygraph program. Every polygraph victim should support and encourage Rep. Jack Brooks' efforts, and encourage your own congressmen to follow the Statesman from Texas and move forward with much needed legislation banning this instrument of fear.

Every study commissioned by the U.S. Congress, from 1963 to 1983, has concluded that there is no scientific basis for the use of the polygraph as a lie detector. The scientists have recommended prohibiting the use of the lie detector for over twenty years, yet the best we can manage is a worthless Resolution setting in some committee on Capitol Hill. What we need is a law banning the damn machine, and we have needed it for over twenty years!
Employers routinely circumvent federal law by simply asking employees to take a lie detector test. Even the government says it is illegal to ask about arrests and sexual habits in a pre-employment test, in fact many areas are off-limits to employers. But the employer can disregard the law by paying a "hired gun" to ask questions he is legally prohibited from asking. Polygraph examiners answer to no one but themselves, the courts refuse to act and even our own president cheers them on and expands their evil industry.

I could make a damn good case for the proposition that you have the right to lie in response to illegal questions. Most of the juicy information I gleaned during polygraph sessions was in response to illegal questions. Do you have the right to lie in response to an illegal question? I don’t know. But I think the real issue is whether the polygraph operator has the right to ask the illegal question in the first place. Unfortunately, many people feel they can afford to tell the complete truth to every question put to them on a polygraph test. Their blind faith in the machine is sadly misplaced. The joke's on those who think the system's fair, because the lie detector has a built-in bias against a truthful person, as a result, the more honest you are the better your chances of failing the test, and the real irony is that the reverse is also true.

Anyway, I can tell the complete truth, or a complete lie, or anything in between, and still pass any lie detector test given any time, by anyone anywhere. Mark Twain said, "If you've done it, it ain't bragging". I have done it hundreds of times in scores of cities. I have taught thousands of others to do the exact same thing, and I
will continue to do so. When you have exhausted all legal remedies, you must get creative in your opposition—thus the Sting Technique.

If you are one of the twenty five million people who are required to submit to a polygraph examination, you may want to prepare for your test as you would any other, by reading up on the techniques used in testing, the criteria used in evaluating the results, in general, you would like to get a feel for the test, after all it could mean a great deal to you. Passing or failing a polygraph test is as important, as the difference between freedom or imprisonment, employment or starvation, but I defy you to find even one book that will assist you in preparation for your polygraph examination. You may be fortunate to find one or two books relating to the subject, but you will find they are written by and for polygraph examiners, and provide you with little real insight, or they are philosophical treatises lamenting the problem, but providing no real solutions. Because of the lack of information about the subject, many people have their own schemes to deal with the polygraph. I have heard just about all of these plans, borne of abject fear and desperation, from the thumb-tack under the toe, to the homemade mind control techniques. Some people are even foolish enough to "just tell the truth". The only things they all have in common are lie detector horror stories — stories of lost jobs, lost freedom, destroyed lives — the real lie detector story.

The polygraph has been cloaked in shady scientific jargon for over fifty years, lie detector operators claim accuracy rate of ninety-six to ninety-eight percent, it has been endorsed by such bastions of journalism and law as Jack Anderson and F. Lee Bailey, and it has received "media validation" on a national level. The polygraph has developed into a multi-billion dollar business since its invention in the late 20's and it is now the longest running con game in the history of the country. It should perhaps be noted that the good old USA is the only country in the world that uses this so-called lie detector.

The polygraph is not a lie detector, and it is not a truth verifier, the polygraph is simply a crude reaction recorder, and the reactions it records can be indicative of just about anything—anything except deception. Let me share with you how the polygraph works, and you decide if it is a lie detector or a sick joke. Please look at Exhibit A to see what the machine actually
records. As you see, the polygraph operator can watch you breathe, watch two fingers sweat, and he can watch your heart beating. Contrary to popular polygraph propaganda, that is all the machine is capable of recording.

During the test, the examiner will ask a series of questions, and watch for any changes in your breathing, perspiration, and blood pressure; these changes are called a “reaction”. A casual look at the diagram in Exhibit B shows the person's breathing has become shallow and erratic, the fingers are sweating, and the blood
pressure is elevated. Does this mean the person has lied? Although it is absurd to come to this conclusion based on such flimsy evidence, that reaction is what polygraph operators refer to as "indicative of deception", and that reaction has been the start of many tear-jerking, sob stories, because, according to polygraph operators, that reaction does in fact mean you have lied.

It is a sound scientific principle, is it always true, as polygraph experts would have you believe, that every time you lie, your breathing becomes erratic, your fingers start to sweat, and your blood pressure increases? Is it also true that every time you react thusly, you have lied?

A while back, I corresponded at some length with various functionaries in the White House concerning the Presidential Directive of 1984, which requires approximately five million government employees who have access to classified material to
submit to a polygraph examination during investigations of leaks of classified material to the news media. I wrote to President Reagan cautioning him against relying on the results of this antiquated instrument. I shared with him what I have just
discussed here, and pointed out that a tense situation can cause the same reaction that the polygraph brands as a lie. For example, I said, Mr. President I'm sure that when you call a news conference, and the question are tough and probing, your fingers begin to sweat, your breathing becomes somewhat labored and erratic, and your blood pressure increases. Does this mean you are lying? Certainly not, you are simply nervous. However, if you were hooked up to a lie detector, you would show "reactions indicative of deception". The President must not have followed my logic,
because he signed the directive.

But I would submit that this exact same "lying reaction" can be caused by many things other than a lie, as a matter of fact, any number of innocent stimuli can and do cause this exact same reaction—fear, rage, embarrassment, a phone ringing, pain from the cardio cuff, and even the tone of the examiner's voice.

The validity of thelie detector is based on a phony set of fifty year old pseudo-scientific principles, and even polygraph experts do not have the temerity to refer to the polygraph as a lie detector, preferring words like "investigatory tool" instead. It is certainly a tool, or, more correctly, a psychological billy club, which allows even the most pusillanimous polygraph operator to become a terrorist. These two-bit con men know their profession is a fraud; that it is impossible for them to explain to anyone's satisfaction how they purport to be able to detect deception by simply recording a person's fight or flight response.

The piles of bullshit produced by the polygraph profession rival Hitler's propaganda machine, but the largest and most odoriferous pile is their theory of the "control question". Simply stated, the control question technique is a method of comparing reactions. For example, if you happen to breathe in short, shallow breaths, your fingers start to sweat, and your blood pressure increases when the polygraph operator asks what you have stolen from work, and you breathe calmly and evenly when he asks if you ate breakfast this morning, you will fail your polygraph test. The unadulterated stupidity of the control question technique presumes two things that are impossible for the polygraph experts to prove. One, they must prove that only the questions cause a reaction, that it is impossible for any other stimuli to give you that little shot of adrenalin necessary to trigger a "reaction". Two and this is even
more ridiculous, the polygraph experts must prove that a truthful person will only react to a control question, and never react to a relevant question. It seems to me that the accusatory nature of the relevant question is a great deal more likely to cause a reaction than some imaginary control question. But perhaps, I'm being too
harsh, here are some more examples of control and relevant questions, you decide which is the more threatening to the two, which is more likely to cause you to have the fatal REACTION.

Relevant — Can you name anyone in the company who is stealing?

Control — Can you drive a car?

Relevant — Have you ever used or sold marijuana?

Control — Have you had anything to eat today?

Relevant — Have you violated any of the company's rules and regulations?

Control — Do you drink coffee?

Remember, the polygraph operator will compare your reactions to these two questions, and if you react more to the relevant than to the control, he will call you a liar. Despite what the F. Lee Bailey's and other polygraph proponents may say, the whole concept of lie detection via the polygraph is nothing but a crock of propaganda.

I can prove the polygraph is not a lie detector, but if you must submit to the machine in order to preserve your freedom, your job, or your reputation, a mere debate as to its validity won't help much. You probably already know the lie detector is a joke, but you may not know how to protect yourself. It is easy to protect yourself from a con man—he can't con you if you know how his scam really works, likewise, a polygraph operator can't convince you the polygraph is a lie detector if you understand how the machine works.

Unfortunately, sometimes you don't have the option to refuse to play the lie detector con man's game; take the damn test or get fired is about the only option available in the real world. This situation requires you to take an additional step to protect your rights to privacy, you must con a con man; which means you must deliberately control every tracing on the polygraph chart without the polygraph operator ever knowing or even suspecting you have done so. If you can control your bowels, you can control your polygraph test results — just read the next few pages carefully, and you will be able to pump out a "truthful' polygraph chart any time you please.

You can easily control every tracing on the polygraph chart, first, please look at Exhibit D as we learn to control the most important of the three, the breathing pattern. Remember your breathing is being recorded, and you want to show the polygraph operator that you do not react to relevant questions. To accomplish this, you must simply breathe in a calm, even, restful manner when you answer a relevant question. You want to appear as though you are not conscious of your breathing while you secretly control every breath you take. When you answer a relevant question, you must breathe slowly and regularly—take care to inhale and exhale approximately the same amount of air each time, and go slowly. If your sting is to be successful, you must learn to control your breathing without being obvious.

Notice the difference between the two diagrams in Exhibit D. The normal pattern is like the waves of a gently rolling sea. The controlled breather shows his attempt to control by thinking only in terms of breathing in and out, he forgot to pause and round off the waves, and as a result he doesn't look very calm. The normal breathing pattern is what you must show the polygraph operator when you answer a relevant question. Please practice the normal pattern by tracing the diagram with your finger as you breathe in and out. Practice until you can control your breathing, without being obvious, for as long as five minutes at a time.

Now that you know how to show a normal breathing pattern when you answer a relevant question, the next step is to learn to show a reaction when you answer a control question. The diagrams in Exhibit E demonstrate five examples of a breathing reaction. This is your way of showing the polygraph man that the control questions cause you to react. These vary in difficulty from simply panting with your lungs full, or gasping with your lungs empty, to just plain holding your breath. Please practice one of these breathing reactions until you can do it automatically, but don't get too dramatic, just show a clear change from your "normal" breathing pattern when you answer a control question.

O.K. so you can now manage to show a "normal" breathing pattern when you answer a relevant question, and you can show a breathing "reaction" when you answer a control question. But, what about controlling your blood pressure? Please don't take drugs, they will only make you easier prey for a skilled interrogator, and don't step on a tack inside your shoe, you will only hurt yourself. Just beating the operator is not enough, you have to sting him—and remember a sting is when you con a con man and he never knows he has been conned. If you are going to sting, you must use your stinger. Please turn to Exhibit F as we discuss a well-known phenomenon associated with your stinger, or more correctly, your anal sphincter muscle.

I became well acquainted with the phenomenon known as the "pucker factor" during my military and police careers. The pucker factor is simply a natural physical reaction to fear. The higher the danger level, the higher the pucker factor. For example, every time a gun was pointed in my direction, the pucker factor got very high, and my butthole started pinching holes in my shorts. What happens, I asked myself one day, if you're not really frightened but
you pucker up your butthole just like you do when you are really scared? Does it look like a blood pressure increase, or as polygraph operators say, a cardio reaction? Yes, if you tighten up your anal sphincter muscle, like you are trying to stop a
bowel movement, you can cause magnificent increase in the cardio tracing immediately. The anal sphincter muscle, when tightened or puckered up, causes a rise in the cardio tracing which leads the polygraph operator to believe you have had a real reaction.
This manipulated cardio reaction also causes a corresponding GSR reaction, because when your blood pressure increases, your sweat activity also increases. All you are doing is duplicating the physical response to fear, and you are doing it deliberately, on demand, at the appropriate time. When you are frightened, you
breathe in shallow, erratic, panting gasps, your butthole puckers up, your blood pressure increases, and you start to sweat. If you do all these things when you are not frightened, it still looks the same on the polygraph chart. A pant is a pant, and a pucker is a pucker, whether real or manipulated. As one of my students once said,
"The Sting Technique is just acting like you're scared when you ain't, and acting like you ain't when you are".

Just knowing how to show a reaction, and how to keep from showing one is not enough, you must also know when, therefore, you must be able to recognize both relevant and control questions as soon as you hear them. The polygraph profession has not agreed on what constitutes a good control question, (largely because there is no such thing as a good control question), as a consequence there are three equally stupid theories concerning the control question. Each group is certain the others are dead wrong, and I say they are all full of fertilizer.

Let me share with you a little inside information about the three types of control questions presently in use, so you too can marvel at the stupidity of the polygraph profession. The first category of control questions is called known-lie questions. They are called this because the polygraph operator assumes you will lie to them, and, if you want to pass your test you will lie. The most common known lie control question is, "Have you ever stolen anything?” The polygraph operator will insist that you make some admissions to this question during the pre-test interview, and some will go to great lengths to "stimulate" you with this question. Play along with his silly game, admit a few childhood thefts, but do not say anything incriminating. Most people "flunk" their polygraph tests because of admissions to "control" questions during their "pretest" interview. The known-lie control questions are matched to the situation, for example if you are being tested about a theft, the control question may be, "During your entire life, have you ever stolen anything?" If you are a rape victim undergoing a lie detector test to prove you have been raped, the control question may be, "Have you ever engaged in any unusual sex acts?" or "Have you ever deliberately hurt anyone?" Pre-employment tests usually use as one of the control questions, "Have you ever stolen anything from a place where you worked?"

In my humble opinion, everything about the lie detector is totally irrelevant, but the second category of control questions is even labeled as such. The irrelevant control questions are easily recognized because they are usually absurdly irrelevant. For example, assume you are being tested concerning a leak of confidential information from the CIA headquarters, some of the irrelevant control questions asked during the test may be, "Can you drive a car?" or "Do you smoke?" The operator will probably ask you to explain your reactions to the irrelevant questions, so have
a good story ready. If he asks why you reacted so much to "Can you drive a car?", tell him you almost had an accident on your way to his office.

The third category of control questions deal with surprise, or embarrassing personal questions. These are even more absurd than the irrelevant questions, and may include something like, "Did you masturbate this morning?" Fortunately, only the worst of the verbal voyeurs in the polygraph profession still use this type of control question.

Tuning is important! You must show both a breathing and blood pressure reaction simultaneously when you answer a control question, and you must appear calm, relaxed, and breathing normally when you answer a relevant question.

A relevant question is obviously one that pertains to the issue at hand, for example, if the polygraph test is about a theft, the relevant questions are, "Did you steal the whatchumacallit?", "Do you know for sure who stole the whatchumacallit?", "Right now, could you take me to the stolen whatchumacallit?", etc. If you are not sure whether a question is relevant or control, assume it is relevant and do not show a reaction.

Your mastery of the "Sting Technique" is almost complete; the only area left unexplored is how to conduct yourself during the interrogation. The sole purpose of the polygraph test is to get incriminating information from the subject, therefore the polygraph operator is usually an expert interrogator, and like most interrogators, he relies on his ability to con you or scare you. Do not allow him to do either. Concentrate on what you are saying, and what you are doing. Stay alert, remember the polygraph is a joke, and the operator is playing a con game, a game you will win if you use the Sting Technique correctly.

The pre-employment polygraph examination is the setting for some of the worst cases of polygraph abuse because, unlike the criminal suspect, the job applicant cannot refuse the test without suffering as a result of the refusal. These polygraph examinations are simply an interrogation, the only part the polygraph plays is to sufficiently scare the hell out of you so as to insure the full disclosure of all the sordid details of past indiscretions. During the pre-test interview, the operator may tell you the reason he is asking so many questions is to get to know you better so he can administer a good test. He may also tell you that passing the test is more important than any admissions you make, and that it will be to your advantage to tell the complete truth in order to pass the exam. He will exhort you to "get everything off your mind, discuss anything that is worrying you, so that nothing interferes with your polygraph test". Do not be deceived, these are merely interrogation tricks designed to try to get you to change your goal. What is your goal in taking a pre-employment polygraph examination? Is it to "tell the complete truth" to every wormy, prying, personal question the polygraph operator chooses to ask? If so, you will probably not get the job. Your original goal is to get a job; you are trying to sell yourself to a prospective employer so you naturally put emphasis on your most positive attributes, your ability, training, education, energy, etc. The polygraph con man will try to change your goal by telling you that in order to get the job, you must pass his polygraph test, and in order to pass, you must "tell the complete truth" to all the questions he asks in the pre-test interview. Your goal then will be to spill your guts in front of the video camera while he sits back and prods you into disclosing information you will never tell another person. Do not allow the interrogator to turn the polygraph room into a confessional! Do not buy into the polygraph operator's lie that he will respect the confidentiality of what you tell him; every word you say is being recorded and will be played back to the person paying for the test. Audio and video recorders and cameras, as well as the ever present see-through mirrors on the wall, with the adjacent observation room to witness the proceedings, are all a part of the well-equipped polygraph suite.

Another interrogation technique, commonly referred to as the stimulation test, is a method by which the examiner will try to impress you with the accuracy of the lie detector. First he will make a big show of shuffling a deck of cards as he describes, or more often lies about, the function of each of the polygraph attachments. (See Exhibit C) He will then hook you up to the machine, placing the pnuemograph tubes around your chest and stomach, (ladies please wear a heavy bra for your own protection), a cardio cuff around your left arm, (which will hurt like hell, but you must endure in silence because polygraph operators all know that only liars complain about the cuff pain), and electrodes on two fingers of your right hand. The operator will go into great and boring detail explaining how the polygraph works, and it may be hard for you to play dumb when you hear the fantastic claims some
of these people make. Bear in mind that the only reason he is putting the attachments on you is to try to intimidate, to make you feel uncomfortable, restrained, and totally under the control of the interrogator and his machine. You must appear suitably subdued, but remember you are in charge of this con game now. At the conclusion of the little intimidation ritual, the operator will ask you to pick a card from the deck he was shuffling earlier. He will tell you which card you picked after you deny picking any of them on the polygraph test. "You will react to a lie, no matter how small, even if all that's at stake is which card you picked", he will proclaim proudly. This is simply another trick—when he diverted your attention with the attachments, the operator swapped the deck of cards for a marked deck and he knows your card the moment you pull it from the deck. You may turn this to your advantage by providing him with a good reaction when you say “no” to the card you picked. Play his game, but do it your way. Let’s assume you pick card number five out of a "randomly numbered deck"; you should manipulate a breathing and blood pressure reaction when you answer no to this question. This will accomplish two things; first it will show him you are a "good subject" that you have the ability to react, and secondly it will cause him to look for that specific reaction on the real polygraph test.

The polygraph operator who is not well versed in the fine art of interrogation, (and those who have gone crackers from too much hog killin’), may try to terrorize you with loud yelling, hostile accusations, and threatening gestures, some have even been known to get a little physical. Do not tolerate physical violence, but don't confuse noise with violence, this type is easy to handle, just remain calm, and appear confused by this anger, he will wear out and leave you alone if you do not respond. Stick with your story, and let him rant and rave, while you think about cartoons or something.
Always appear cooperative, act sincere, use plenty of eye contact, stay alert, never exhibit any hostility or arrogance, and you can counter any interrogation technique the polygraph operator can throw at you.

Please practice before you go one-on-one against a professional. Use these sample examinations to prepare yourself; each has a different set of control questions and deals with a different set of circumstances. If you are prepared to handle these, you can handle any type of polygraph test, but please practice.

The first test is based on the following set of circumstances. You are a twenty-seven year employee of the CIA, and, thanks to President Reagan, you are required to submit to a polygraph test or be terminated. The purpose of the test is to determine who leaked a story to the Washington Post. The questions you may encounter by a practitioner of the known-lie control question technique are listed below.

1. Do you live in the United States?

2. Is your name Harry Jones?

(R) 3. Do you know for sure who gave that information to the Washington Post?

(R) 4. Did you give that information to the Washington Post?

(C) 5. Beside the harmonica at age six, have you ever stolen anything else?

(R) 6. Can you name the "informed sources" quoted by the Washington Post?

(R) 7. Have you lied to me about leaking classified information?

(R) 8. Have you lied to me on any of these questions?

(C) 9. Besides the ball point pens, have you ever stolen anything else form work?

(R) 10. Are you now concealing any information whatsoever about the leaks of classified material?

With questions one and two, the examiner is allowing you time to become accustomed to the sound of his voice, this gives you time to start your normal breathing pattern. Question three is your first relevant question. You should listen to the questions only to determine whether they are relevant or control, don't let the operator "psych you out", remember this is just a game, and all you must do is breathe normally. Question four is the most relevant question. Simply picture the normal breathing pattern in your mind and produce it on the polygraph chart. Question five is your prime control question. Because it is less incriminating than the other control, you should manipulate your largest reaction to this question. Remember to breathe erratically, and tighten up your butthole for about seven seconds, but for chrissake show a little class, do it subtly. Don't react to questions six, seven, and eight. Do react, but less so, to question nine, and don't react to ten. It's so easy, it's almost boring right? Stay alert! The operator may ask you to say yes to all the questions you had previously answered with a no. Don't let him throw you, it's just another trick, and all you must do is reverse your reactions to comply with your new answers. In other words, just react to the relevant questions since he is requiring you to lie, and show him your largest reaction to the most relevant, but don't react to the control questions this time.

The scenario for the second polygraph exam is as follows: You have applied for a job, and the brain damaged personnel director asks if you will submit to a pre-employment polygraph examination, assuring you that it is just a formality. Don't tell him he will be paying a hundred dollars just to record you performing a few breathing exercises, and puckering your butthole, he probably wouldn't believe you anyway. The questions you may encounter if the examiner is a graduate of the irrelevant control question school are listed below.

1. Is your first name Janine?

2. Do you live in Dallas?

(R) 3. Did you tell the complete truth on your job application? (R) 4. Have you ever been arrested?

(R) 5. Do you drink? . . . (more than just occasionally?)

(C) 6. Can you drive a car? (R) 7. Have you ever used or sold narcotic drugs?

(R) 8. Are you now concealing any information about your previous work record?

(R) 9. Are you behind on any of your bills?

(R) 10. Have you told me the complete truth about how much you owe?

(C) 11. Did you eat breakfast this morning?

(R) 12. Have you told me the complete truth about your physical condition?

(R) 13. Is there anything in your background that would disqualify you from getting this job?

(C) 14. Were you born in Texas?

(R) 15. Have you lied to me about what you have stolen from previous places of employment?

(R) 16. Is there anything in your personal life that might interfere with your employment?

(R) 17. Do you gamble? (more than what you've told me?)

(R) 18. Have you lied to me on any of these questions?

(C) 19. Are you really 30 years old?

A good way to practice your Sting Technique is to have a friend read the questions to you, allowing an interval of about fifteen to twenty seconds between questions. You should answer the questions aloud with a yes or no while at the same time manipulating or controlling your reactions to these questions.

The third practice test is a periodic polygraph examination. This Gestapo-type test is usually given every six months to employees "picked at random" from the work force. The questions you may encounter in the Embarrassing Personal control question technique, (the imaginative perversion of the polygraph profession never ceases to amaze me), are listed below.

1. Is your last name Jones?

2. Were you born in Oklahoma?

(R) 3. Can you name anyone in the company who is stealing?

(R) 4. Have you stolen anything from the company in the past six months?

(O 5. Is "J" the tenth letter of the alphabet?

(R) 6. Have you violated any of the company's rules and regulations?

(R) 7. Are you working with anyone to steal from the company?

(R) 8. Have you devised a plan to steal from the company?

(O 9. Have you even had sex with an animal?

(R) 10. Do you use or sell drugs?

(R) 11. Have you ever used drugs or alcohol on company time?

(R) 12. Are you covering up for anyone who is cheating or stealing from the company?

(O 13. Do you masturbate?

(R) 14. Have you lied to me on any of these questions?

(C) 15. I am now going to ask you a very personal and embarrassing question…have you ever….?

You should have no difficulty manipulating a reaction to some of these control questions, but please practice before you go. One other quick tip, the operator may ask you what questions you remember out of them all, always say you remember the control questions, because that indicates they troubled you the most. Never indicate by words or reactions that the relevant questions cause you any trouble whatsoever.

The polygraph profession has accused me of having a myriad of sordid motives for writing this little manual, perhaps their anger stems from the fact that the only power they have is derived from the fear and ignorance of their victims. I only hope I have been successful in tipping the balance of power from the terrorists to the
victims by telling some of the tricks of this terrible trade.

As to my ex-colleagues' criticism, I would offer this thought for consideration. It would, after all, be the ultimate irony for a lie detector operator to object to the truth.

Additional Media Coverage

On the pages that follow, we present further evidence (newspaper clippings) that Doug referred to in the book. As a consumer advocate, Doug continues to receive press coverage today.

Doug can be reached for further comment through his website at www.polygraph.com.