- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 14, 2001, 06:19 PMNetnin,
If such information had been published, it would not necessarily be available on the Internet, for free, at this point. For example, the American Polygraph Association (APA) quarterly Polygraph, which has published numerous articles on techniques for scoring polygraph charts (but not on how to detect countermeasures by analyzing them), is not available on-line, although a CD-ROM archive may be purchased from the APA by non-members for $250. (I bought it.)
The point I'm making here is that even in polygraph literature that is not available on-line, to the best of my knowledge nothing has been published that would help a polygrapher to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by analyzing polygraph charts (or by other means). The only "technique" I've found is the bluff described by London & Krapohl and discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, wherein the polygrapher removes the polygraph attachments, pulls up a chair knee-to-knee with the subject, and declares, "I know what you're doing" in the hope of eliciting a confession.
If such information had been published, it would not necessarily be available on the Internet, for free, at this point. For example, the American Polygraph Association (APA) quarterly Polygraph, which has published numerous articles on techniques for scoring polygraph charts (but not on how to detect countermeasures by analyzing them), is not available on-line, although a CD-ROM archive may be purchased from the APA by non-members for $250. (I bought it.)
The point I'm making here is that even in polygraph literature that is not available on-line, to the best of my knowledge nothing has been published that would help a polygrapher to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by analyzing polygraph charts (or by other means). The only "technique" I've found is the bluff described by London & Krapohl and discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, wherein the polygrapher removes the polygraph attachments, pulls up a chair knee-to-knee with the subject, and declares, "I know what you're doing" in the hope of eliciting a confession.
Posted by MissionPoly-ban
- Nov 14, 2001, 05:54 PMGeorge:
Thanks for responding....
Even more astounding than the fact that no one has been willing to "discuss" how countermeasure tracings differ from normal physiological anxiety reactions is the fact that NO ONE has LEAKED INFORMATION out about how the distinction can be made. Lets get serious here...if examiners were able to make such a distinction, one of them (of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of testers in the WORLDDDDD!) would break free from the norm and let the information go. Not only let the information go, but let it go in a way where we would be able to go to a search engine such as "GOOGLE," type the words "Polygraph Scoring" in to the search term, and come up with some form of literature that reveals this so called "ability to distinguish between countermeasures and normal reactions on a polygraph chart." This is the 21'st century, and that is the way the world works. Let me ask any polygrapher who reads this message one simple question:
Do you honestly feel that if there were information out there regarding distinguishing countermeasures on polygraph charts, that it wouldn't already be posted on twenty different internet sites (REGARDLESS of how secret it is supposed to be kept)? We are talking about DIFFERENCES IN LINES! That's it! We aren't talking about Top-Secret United States intentions in Afghanistan....OH WAIT--that information has probably already gotton out. Get my point?
Thanks for responding....
Even more astounding than the fact that no one has been willing to "discuss" how countermeasure tracings differ from normal physiological anxiety reactions is the fact that NO ONE has LEAKED INFORMATION out about how the distinction can be made. Lets get serious here...if examiners were able to make such a distinction, one of them (of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of testers in the WORLDDDDD!) would break free from the norm and let the information go. Not only let the information go, but let it go in a way where we would be able to go to a search engine such as "GOOGLE," type the words "Polygraph Scoring" in to the search term, and come up with some form of literature that reveals this so called "ability to distinguish between countermeasures and normal reactions on a polygraph chart." This is the 21'st century, and that is the way the world works. Let me ask any polygrapher who reads this message one simple question:
Do you honestly feel that if there were information out there regarding distinguishing countermeasures on polygraph charts, that it wouldn't already be posted on twenty different internet sites (REGARDLESS of how secret it is supposed to be kept)? We are talking about DIFFERENCES IN LINES! That's it! We aren't talking about Top-Secret United States intentions in Afghanistan....OH WAIT--that information has probably already gotton out. Get my point?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 14, 2001, 05:01 PMNetnin,
The next time you interview a polygrapher, please consider inviting your distinguished interlocutor to post here on the AntiPolygraph.org message board an exegesis on the divination of countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. To date, not a single polygraph "professional" has proven to be up to the task.
In July 2001, American Polygraph Association president Skip Webb told Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn that the methods taught by Doug Williams (which are consistent with those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) are "outdated" and that his customers stand the "same slim chance" of beating the polygraph as anyone else. I publicly challenged him to back up his claim. He did not reply. Mr. Zorn invited Mr. Webb to join me in a moderated debate about polygraphy via his website; Mr. Webb declined. (For more on this, see the message thread "A Public Challenge to APA President Skip Webb" and scroll down to reply #12 dated 16 July 2001.)
More recently, in October 2001, Illinois Polygraph Society president Harry Reed told reporter Brad Burke of the Peoria Journal Star that experienced polygraphers can easily detect countermeasures attempts. I publicly challenged him to support his claim. To date, Mr. Reed has not responded.
And in May 2001, I asked the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's recently retired senior authority on polygraph countermeasures, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, the following question:
Dr. Barland dodged the question, which you'll find in Reply #8 in the message thread "Countermeasure considerations for the innocent."
And in its 30-year history, the American Polygraph Association has not published a single article explaining how a polygrapher can reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Peer reviewed research by Professor Charles Honts and others (see citations in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) indicates that they cannot detect such countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy.
I submit that polygraphers' claims that they can detect such countermeasures are unsupported and are not credible. While the American Polygraph Association's motto is "Dedicated to Truth," the community of polygraph "professionals" -- who's art depends on lying to and deceiving those "tested" -- seems to be more dedicated to its bottom line than to truth.
The next time you interview a polygrapher, please consider inviting your distinguished interlocutor to post here on the AntiPolygraph.org message board an exegesis on the divination of countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. To date, not a single polygraph "professional" has proven to be up to the task.
In July 2001, American Polygraph Association president Skip Webb told Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn that the methods taught by Doug Williams (which are consistent with those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) are "outdated" and that his customers stand the "same slim chance" of beating the polygraph as anyone else. I publicly challenged him to back up his claim. He did not reply. Mr. Zorn invited Mr. Webb to join me in a moderated debate about polygraphy via his website; Mr. Webb declined. (For more on this, see the message thread "A Public Challenge to APA President Skip Webb" and scroll down to reply #12 dated 16 July 2001.)
More recently, in October 2001, Illinois Polygraph Society president Harry Reed told reporter Brad Burke of the Peoria Journal Star that experienced polygraphers can easily detect countermeasures attempts. I publicly challenged him to support his claim. To date, Mr. Reed has not responded.
And in May 2001, I asked the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's recently retired senior authority on polygraph countermeasures, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, the following question:
QuoteAbsent an admission from the subject that he/she used countermeasures, how can a polygraph examiner "confirm" that any of the various countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were employed? (Again, the answer "I know, but I cannot tell you" is not convincing.)
Dr. Barland dodged the question, which you'll find in Reply #8 in the message thread "Countermeasure considerations for the innocent."
And in its 30-year history, the American Polygraph Association has not published a single article explaining how a polygrapher can reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Peer reviewed research by Professor Charles Honts and others (see citations in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) indicates that they cannot detect such countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy.
I submit that polygraphers' claims that they can detect such countermeasures are unsupported and are not credible. While the American Polygraph Association's motto is "Dedicated to Truth," the community of polygraph "professionals" -- who's art depends on lying to and deceiving those "tested" -- seems to be more dedicated to its bottom line than to truth.
Posted by MissionPoly-ban
- Nov 14, 2001, 05:11 AMPolygrapher: hi
Me: Hey whats up polyster...
Me: I have to admit I have talked to quite a few of you examiners and have found so much conflicting response that it is clear you guys have either been taught to protect your test, or you have been brainwashed...which one is it?
Me: Seriously...which one is it?
Me: I've already had a few of you guys crack under the anonymity of the internet messaging and give in to the truth.....
Polygrapher: its just we dont trust someone that is tring to get info on how to beat a polygraph
Me : Here is the response one of your fellow graphers gave in regards to beating the test:
Me: 1) This would depend upon the type of equipment being used by the examiner. If properly equipped, pushing down on the foot would be detected. The subject would also have to know various techniques. In particular he would have to know the technique that the examiner was using so he would know when to push his foot down (assuming there was a lack of equipment to detect physical counter measurers)
Me: 2) It would be recorded on the chart .(Providing the examiner was using such equipment) Otherwise the examiner would have to catch him.
Me: This isn't the only polygrapher who gave in, just one that was blunt about the truth...
Polygrapher: what truth
Me: About the reality of potentially beating a test, even using a simple countermeasure....
Polygrapher: LOL
Me: lol
Polygrapher : u writing a book or are u a criminal
Me: Here is some food for thought that crossed my mind
the other day...and discussed with other examiners:
Me: No I'm going to law school remember!
Me: silly
Me: I'm practicing articulating arguements...
Me: but back to my food for thought...
Polygrapher: you are talking to the wrong people
Me: No kidding...lol
Polygrapher: have u talked to *&%$#$ ?
Me: I'm waiting for his response to my email I sent out
Me: I messaged him and he said he woulod reply via
email
Polygrapher: he was just on
Me: Yeah I talked to him for a split sec...he was busy
Me: But back to what I was going to say
Polygrapher: u are tring to prove that polygraph doesnt work
Polygrapher: event if u can prove it
Me: no not at all
Me: listen for a sec though...
Polygrapher: that is what it seems to me
Me: The majority of the graphers I've talked to on the internet have ranted and raved about how absolutely EASY and OBVIOUS (with capital E and capital O) it is to recognize countermeasures on the actual polygraph chart itself....
Me: With that said, let me finish....
Polygrapher: go on
Me: These same polygraphers who have argued this point to me have stressed time and time again the counter-countermeasures they use, such as wiping a persons fingers clean, looking for a limping walk(tac in the shoe), watching jaw movement to indicate someones biting the tongue, the new sensors put in to the newer seats to determine movement, recording the test to watch over and see if the person was moving to try and beat the test, etc etc etc!
Let me finish before you react
Polygrapher: u have been busy
Me: These polygraphers are also the ones who use the fear tactic of warning/intimidating the examinees by stating, '"Are you trying to beat this test with countermeasures? I';ll stop the test right now and fail you!"
let me finish
Me: Now you explain to me, with any type of good explanation, why polygraphers would need to worry about any of these things if the countermeasures were so easily detected on paper, as so many of them say they do. If the truth was that it is "VERY EASY" to notic e on paper, there would be no need to bother going to such drastic measures to detect and look for countermeausures, because the examiner could then simply just look at the chart and supposedly easily notice the countermeasures (as they say they can)
Me: and fail the person...
Me: plain and simple
Me: If it was so easy to detect on paper, there would be none of these things going on...there would be no need for sensors in chairs, intimidation, asking examinees if they have studied the detector, asking them to take their shoes off...etc
Me: It simply, plainly, does not make sense, and I believe the idea that countermeasures are "so obvious on paper" is absolutely nonsensical...
Me: Whats your reaction to that?
Polygrapher: because if people were smart they wouldnt try
Polygrapher: people are stupid
Me: Thats your response...
Me: That gives light to nothing....
Me: sorry to be blunt...
Polygrapher: what is that u want to know? why people try to beat the polygraph? If its so easy to spot?
Me: Did you miss my entire point?
Me: Let me sum it up in a few words...
Me: Why would polygrapers need to go to such great lengths in trying to detect countermeasures in the act (asking them to remove shoes, wiping fingers clean, putting sensors in the seats, looking for unusual jaw movement, etc) if it is apparantly such an easy task to notic countermeasure on the chart readings?
Me: It doesn't make sense...
Polygrapher: because the object of the test is to get a accurate test
Me: If it were so easy, as nearly all the examiners I have talked to say it is, to detect the countermeasures simply by looking at the charts, then why go through the hastle, or even bother for that matter, to try and catch them in the act...there would be no need..
Me: That doesn't make sense either...if the person is telling the truth then there will be as accurate a reading as possible
Polyrapher: NO
Me: IF they are lying and not using countermeasures, they should fail due to the fact that the test does work pretty well when people are clearly lying
Me: But if the person is using countermeasures it is MOST LIKELY (as in probably 99 % ) that the person is lying and trying to beat the test
Polygrapher: if the person tries to beat the polygraph and its not cought the test is inconclusive
Me: Still doesn't make sense, because if it is easy to detect COUNTERMEASURES on the actual chart, as most examiners have said it is an easy task, then they can simply look at the chart and say, "this person tried to use countermeasures"
Me: It seems clear that it is not an easy task to determine whether they are countermeasures or normal reaction on the chart
Polygrapher: the examiner does not want an inconclusive Chart
Me: Your missing my point...the chart would come up inconclusive, but the examiner would still be able to say, "Inconclusive, but the examinee used countermeasures"
Me: A person detected of using countermeasures is automatically FAILED
Me: if countermeasures were so easily detected on the graph
Me: Why would an examiner care if they came up with an inconclusive chart if they say they KNOW countermeasures were used just by looking at the chart?
Me: They would say "Inconclusive, and the person used countermeasures"
Me: Sure they don't want inconclusive charts because they want closer to the test, but they sure as hell wouldn't mind saying "inconclusive but countermeasures were used"
Polygrapher: if its not true or lie its inconclusive
Me: But it appears to me, after studying up, that detecting countermeasures on the chart isn't a simple task at all, and that the idea that the reactions to countermeasures "not cohering to normal nervous reactions" is garbage. It appears obvious that most polygraphers would have a hell of a time distinguishing countermeasures on the chart.
Me: Plain and simple, there would be no need for examiners to use counter-countermeasures...end of discussion
Polygrapher: oh yes I for got U know it all
u should be an attorney they are all know alls lol thats why most of them are scum...nite
-----------------------
As you can see, polygraphers are obviously trained to protect their test!
Me: Hey whats up polyster...
Me: I have to admit I have talked to quite a few of you examiners and have found so much conflicting response that it is clear you guys have either been taught to protect your test, or you have been brainwashed...which one is it?
Me: Seriously...which one is it?
Me: I've already had a few of you guys crack under the anonymity of the internet messaging and give in to the truth.....
Polygrapher: its just we dont trust someone that is tring to get info on how to beat a polygraph
Me : Here is the response one of your fellow graphers gave in regards to beating the test:
Me: 1) This would depend upon the type of equipment being used by the examiner. If properly equipped, pushing down on the foot would be detected. The subject would also have to know various techniques. In particular he would have to know the technique that the examiner was using so he would know when to push his foot down (assuming there was a lack of equipment to detect physical counter measurers)
Me: 2) It would be recorded on the chart .(Providing the examiner was using such equipment) Otherwise the examiner would have to catch him.
Me: This isn't the only polygrapher who gave in, just one that was blunt about the truth...
Polygrapher: what truth
Me: About the reality of potentially beating a test, even using a simple countermeasure....
Polygrapher: LOL
Me: lol
Polygrapher : u writing a book or are u a criminal
Me: Here is some food for thought that crossed my mind
the other day...and discussed with other examiners:
Me: No I'm going to law school remember!
Me: silly
Me: I'm practicing articulating arguements...
Me: but back to my food for thought...
Polygrapher: you are talking to the wrong people
Me: No kidding...lol
Polygrapher: have u talked to *&%$#$ ?
Me: I'm waiting for his response to my email I sent out
Me: I messaged him and he said he woulod reply via
Polygrapher: he was just on
Me: Yeah I talked to him for a split sec...he was busy
Me: But back to what I was going to say
Polygrapher: u are tring to prove that polygraph doesnt work
Polygrapher: event if u can prove it
Me: no not at all
Me: listen for a sec though...
Polygrapher: that is what it seems to me
Me: The majority of the graphers I've talked to on the internet have ranted and raved about how absolutely EASY and OBVIOUS (with capital E and capital O) it is to recognize countermeasures on the actual polygraph chart itself....
Me: With that said, let me finish....
Polygrapher: go on
Me: These same polygraphers who have argued this point to me have stressed time and time again the counter-countermeasures they use, such as wiping a persons fingers clean, looking for a limping walk(tac in the shoe), watching jaw movement to indicate someones biting the tongue, the new sensors put in to the newer seats to determine movement, recording the test to watch over and see if the person was moving to try and beat the test, etc etc etc!
Let me finish before you react
Polygrapher: u have been busy
Me: These polygraphers are also the ones who use the fear tactic of warning/intimidating the examinees by stating, '"Are you trying to beat this test with countermeasures? I';ll stop the test right now and fail you!"
let me finish
Me: Now you explain to me, with any type of good explanation, why polygraphers would need to worry about any of these things if the countermeasures were so easily detected on paper, as so many of them say they do. If the truth was that it is "VERY EASY" to notic e on paper, there would be no need to bother going to such drastic measures to detect and look for countermeausures, because the examiner could then simply just look at the chart and supposedly easily notice the countermeasures (as they say they can)
Me: and fail the person...
Me: plain and simple
Me: If it was so easy to detect on paper, there would be none of these things going on...there would be no need for sensors in chairs, intimidation, asking examinees if they have studied the detector, asking them to take their shoes off...etc
Me: It simply, plainly, does not make sense, and I believe the idea that countermeasures are "so obvious on paper" is absolutely nonsensical...
Me: Whats your reaction to that?
Polygrapher: because if people were smart they wouldnt try
Polygrapher: people are stupid
Me: Thats your response...
Me: That gives light to nothing....
Me: sorry to be blunt...
Polygrapher: what is that u want to know? why people try to beat the polygraph? If its so easy to spot?
Me: Did you miss my entire point?
Me: Let me sum it up in a few words...
Me: Why would polygrapers need to go to such great lengths in trying to detect countermeasures in the act (asking them to remove shoes, wiping fingers clean, putting sensors in the seats, looking for unusual jaw movement, etc) if it is apparantly such an easy task to notic countermeasure on the chart readings?
Me: It doesn't make sense...
Polygrapher: because the object of the test is to get a accurate test
Me: If it were so easy, as nearly all the examiners I have talked to say it is, to detect the countermeasures simply by looking at the charts, then why go through the hastle, or even bother for that matter, to try and catch them in the act...there would be no need..
Me: That doesn't make sense either...if the person is telling the truth then there will be as accurate a reading as possible
Polyrapher: NO
Me: IF they are lying and not using countermeasures, they should fail due to the fact that the test does work pretty well when people are clearly lying
Me: But if the person is using countermeasures it is MOST LIKELY (as in probably 99 % ) that the person is lying and trying to beat the test
Polygrapher: if the person tries to beat the polygraph and its not cought the test is inconclusive
Me: Still doesn't make sense, because if it is easy to detect COUNTERMEASURES on the actual chart, as most examiners have said it is an easy task, then they can simply look at the chart and say, "this person tried to use countermeasures"
Me: It seems clear that it is not an easy task to determine whether they are countermeasures or normal reaction on the chart
Polygrapher: the examiner does not want an inconclusive Chart
Me: Your missing my point...the chart would come up inconclusive, but the examiner would still be able to say, "Inconclusive, but the examinee used countermeasures"
Me: A person detected of using countermeasures is automatically FAILED
Me: if countermeasures were so easily detected on the graph
Me: Why would an examiner care if they came up with an inconclusive chart if they say they KNOW countermeasures were used just by looking at the chart?
Me: They would say "Inconclusive, and the person used countermeasures"
Me: Sure they don't want inconclusive charts because they want closer to the test, but they sure as hell wouldn't mind saying "inconclusive but countermeasures were used"
Polygrapher: if its not true or lie its inconclusive
Me: But it appears to me, after studying up, that detecting countermeasures on the chart isn't a simple task at all, and that the idea that the reactions to countermeasures "not cohering to normal nervous reactions" is garbage. It appears obvious that most polygraphers would have a hell of a time distinguishing countermeasures on the chart.
Me: Plain and simple, there would be no need for examiners to use counter-countermeasures...end of discussion
Polygrapher: oh yes I for got U know it all
u should be an attorney they are all know alls lol thats why most of them are scum...nite
-----------------------
As you can see, polygraphers are obviously trained to protect their test!