From - Mon Oct 25 20:29:00 2004
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <417D45EC.1090903@zonnet.nl>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:29:00 +0200
From: "George W. Maschke" <maschke@zonnet.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Louis Rovner <Rovner@Polygraph-West.com>
Subject: A Public Challenge
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear Dr. Rovner,<br>
<br>
In a Rovner &amp; Associates <a
 href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/10-25-2004/0002308641&amp;EDATE=">press
release</a> distributed today by PR Newswire, you are quoted as saying
that "[a]lmost no human being<br>
can beat a polygraph test." I challenge you to support this claim with
any peer-reviewed research (or any other evidence on which you may base
it). In peer reviewed studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators,
some 50% of polygraph subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no
more than 30 minutes of instruction. (Citations and abstracts are
provided in the bibliography of <i><a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf">The
Lie Behind the Lie Detector</a>.)</i> Moreover, <font size="2"><font
 size="2">spies like <a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-027.shtml"
 target="_blank">Ignatz Theodor Griebl</a>, <a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1020510786"
 target="_blank">Karel Frantisek Koecher</a>, <a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1068101660"
 target="_blank">Larry Wu-tai Chin</a>, <a
 href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html"
 target="_blank">Aldrich Hazen Ames</a>, and <a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1001149488"
 target="_blank">Ana Belen Montes</a> all passed the polygraph while
lying about relevant issues. So, too, did <a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1067927512"
 target="_blank">Gary Ridgway</a>, A.K.A. "The Green River Killer," the
deadliest serial murderer in U.S. history.</font></font> The results of
the aforementioned research, and the real world examples provided, are
hard to reconcile with your assertion that "almost no human being can
beat a polygraph test."<br>
<font size="2"><font size="2"><br>
Your press release additionally avers that "lie detection technology
has become so sophisticated that a polygraph can now detect a person's
efforts to try to beat the test." On what basis do you make this claim?
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed research (or indeed, any published
research at all) that would support this conclusion.<br>
<br>
Finally, you also claim that you "are confident that polygraph tests
have a 96% accuracy rate when done properly." If you truly believe
this, and are confident in your ability to do a polygraph test
properly,&nbsp; why not accept Dr. Drew C. Richardson's standing <a
 href="http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc&amp;action=display&amp;num=1012236418">polygraph
countermeasure challenge</a>? As of today, this challenge has gone
1,001 days without takers.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George W. Maschke<br>
AntiPolygraph.org<br>
<br>
PS: A copy of this message will be posted to the AntiPolygraph.org
message board.<br>
<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>

