- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 10, 2004, 04:30 PMOn 10 December 2004, Barry M. Cushman, a polygraph operator employed with the Portland (Maine) Police Department posted remarks concerning AntiPolygraph.org to the PolygraphPlace.com message board in a thread titled, Beating the Poly.
Because the PolygraphPlace.com message board is censored, and critics of polygraphy such as myself are not allowed to post there, I shall respond to Mr. Cushman, who posted as "Barry C," here:
Actually, it does. In particular, studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators showed that half of study subjects were able beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of training, and that even experienced polygraphers could not detect the countermeasures. Abstracts of these studies are provided in the annotated bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Your claim that polygraph countermeasures are "so easy to recognize" is belied by the fact that Paul M. Menges, who teaches the countermeasure course for polygraph examiners at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, has publicly suggested that making countermeasure information available to the public (as AntiPolygraph.org does) is immoral and should be outlawed. Apparently, Mr. Menges does not share your belief that such countermeasures are "so easy to recognize." For further information, see, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public."
Your assertion that the purpose of Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge is "to suck [you] into training [us]" is laughable. The challenge quite plainly does not require that the polygrapher divulge how he/she purports to detect countermeasures. It merely requires that he/she detect them.
The reason that Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone over 1,000 days without any takers (even when a $5,000 cash incentive was offered) is not polygraphers' fear of divulging tricks of the trade.
Polygraphers are fond of saying that you can't beat the polygraph, but you can beat the examiner. But that's meaningless double talk. By using countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, deceptive persons can produce stronger reactions to the "control" questions than to the relevant ones, thereby passing the "test." No polygrapher, however well-trained, has yet demonstrated any ability to reliably detect such countermeasures. Perhaps you'd care to be the first to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge?
You are welcome to reply here, Mr. Cushman. Unlike PolygraphPlace.com, we here at AntiPolygraph.org are not afraid of open discussion and debate with those who may disagree with us.
Because the PolygraphPlace.com message board is censored, and critics of polygraphy such as myself are not allowed to post there, I shall respond to Mr. Cushman, who posted as "Barry C," here:
QuoteYes, there are web sites out there that claim to teach people how to "beat" the polygraph, but the scientific research on the subject doesn't support their claims.
Actually, it does. In particular, studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators showed that half of study subjects were able beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of training, and that even experienced polygraphers could not detect the countermeasures. Abstracts of these studies are provided in the annotated bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Quote(I've read their books / guides, and much of what they teach is wrong, and we in the polygraph community are not going to educate them since they make it so easy to recognize their tactics. That is why they have their challenge. They want to suck us in to training them.)
Your claim that polygraph countermeasures are "so easy to recognize" is belied by the fact that Paul M. Menges, who teaches the countermeasure course for polygraph examiners at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, has publicly suggested that making countermeasure information available to the public (as AntiPolygraph.org does) is immoral and should be outlawed. Apparently, Mr. Menges does not share your belief that such countermeasures are "so easy to recognize." For further information, see, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public."
Your assertion that the purpose of Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge is "to suck [you] into training [us]" is laughable. The challenge quite plainly does not require that the polygrapher divulge how he/she purports to detect countermeasures. It merely requires that he/she detect them.
The reason that Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone over 1,000 days without any takers (even when a $5,000 cash incentive was offered) is not polygraphers' fear of divulging tricks of the trade.
QuoteIt is wrong to think anybody can "beat" the polygraph as it only records body physiology. It is possible - but not very probable - that you could beat an examiner who doesn't know anything about such tactics. They do exist, but they'd have had to avoided cont. ed. classes for the past several years to allow a person to slip by - and there aren't too many of them around. Most in the profession train constantly.
Polygraphers are fond of saying that you can't beat the polygraph, but you can beat the examiner. But that's meaningless double talk. By using countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, deceptive persons can produce stronger reactions to the "control" questions than to the relevant ones, thereby passing the "test." No polygrapher, however well-trained, has yet demonstrated any ability to reliably detect such countermeasures. Perhaps you'd care to be the first to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge?
You are welcome to reply here, Mr. Cushman. Unlike PolygraphPlace.com, we here at AntiPolygraph.org are not afraid of open discussion and debate with those who may disagree with us.