- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ecordy75
- Oct 18, 2009, 02:05 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 11, 2009, 08:56 PMNo lawyer portrayal here, Cullen. But if I were an polygraph examinee foolish enough to have read TLBTLD and attempted its advice only to end up failing as a direct result, I'd consider suing George. As I said, the United States is a country where people can file a lawsuit about anything. And they often win.
If that is the case, as you claim, then people have the First Amendment authority to free speech to say anything they want during a polygraph interview - whether interviewing for a job or a criminal suspect - and then they can sue someone for violating that legal authority.
Posted by Administrator
- May 14, 2009, 02:59 AMIt should be noted that the originator of this message thread, LieBabyCryBaby, who evidently hoped that this website might be silenced by means of a civil suit, is a federal law enforcement officer: Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Shawn Hacking. Several of his posts in this message thread originate from a DEA-registered IP address. It is not clear whether his posting here was sanctioned by the DEA. Special Agent Hacking has been banned following repeated violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 13, 2009, 05:37 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 12, 2009, 11:19 AMThis makes more sense than your, George's and other "anti-" forum regulars' assumption that an innocent person needs to attempt countermeasures to ensure that he/she passes the polygraph exam.You should probably reread at least some of my previous posts.
I have never suggested that anyone try to use countermeasures and I don't recall ever having written that my assumption is one cannot pass a polygraph without using countermeasures.
I also do not pass myself off as an expert, but I am tired of pointing that out to you since it has become clear you are here simply to troll and not engage in any serious discussion.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 13, 2009, 02:35 AMQuoteI answered all relevant questions truthfully.
But how can you be sure?
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 13, 2009, 01:40 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 13, 2009, 12:38 AMFine, G. Then you must have lied to every relevant question, right?...
Wrong. I answered all relevant questions truthfully.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 13, 2009, 12:38 AMFine, G. Then you must have lied to every relevant question, right? Because that's the only other plausible explanation for failing every relevant question when we discount your naive speculation of examiner misconduct and unorthodox scoring methods.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 13, 2009, 12:27 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 12, 2009, 06:58 PMNice try, George, but those are not likely possible explanations....
However unlikely they may be, each is more likely than your conjecture that I used "spontaneous" countermeasures. I didn't.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 12, 2009, 11:02 PMEvan S, finally someone of superior intelligence on the "anti-" side comes on this forum with something truly excellent.
I enjoyed reading the articles. The Washington Post article really was disturbing. I've never heard of this type of abuse at the federal polygraph level. There is supposed to be quality control, not just in each individual polygraph exam, but also in the oversight conducted by DODPI (now DACA) in annual inspections of all federal polygraph programs.
Unfortunately, the rivalries that exist between federal agencies in general might carry over into the polygraph arena. The problem is not so much with the examiners themselves, but with managers. There is supposed to be uniformity and consistency from one federal agency to another in the polygraph process, especially since all receive their training and certification from DACA, and annual inspections and required yearly refresher training are designed to ensure that this is so. However, at the management level, which usually consists of big egos who aren't polygraph examiners but rather administrators trying to get promoted, there are sometimes outside forces that can affect a program in a negative manner.
I'm more familiar with the FBI program than that of the "spooks" at CIA. I do know that NSA conducts periodical CI exams of its employees, and I've never agreed with this procedure. Once someone is proven (to the best ability of an agency) to be a qualified applicant with no known skeletons in his closet, he should not be subject to polygraph exams every year or, God forbid, several times a year. You say that "Better background investigations and ongoing security education is the solution, and not polygraphs." I absolutely agree with you. While the polygraph is a good screening tool at the entry level, I don't agree with its continued, periodical use with proven employees, and there has been some research regarding the utility of repeated polygraph exams.
The second article is a bit more dubious, since we aren't privy to the background of the former manager's story except from his own point of view. Retaliation? Maybe and maybe not. But it's ironic, certainly.
Interesting that you would advocate "behavioral countermeasures" while not recommending mental or physical countermeasures. Again, I agree. If someone is truly one of the tiny minority who is a "false positive," I've stated before that you must defend your own integrity.
Thank you for posting something interesting, informative, and without portraying yourself as an expert in the polygraph process. Your opinion is valued, and I respect that. If only some of the more ignorant and vocal regulars on this forum could be more like you.
I enjoyed reading the articles. The Washington Post article really was disturbing. I've never heard of this type of abuse at the federal polygraph level. There is supposed to be quality control, not just in each individual polygraph exam, but also in the oversight conducted by DODPI (now DACA) in annual inspections of all federal polygraph programs.
Unfortunately, the rivalries that exist between federal agencies in general might carry over into the polygraph arena. The problem is not so much with the examiners themselves, but with managers. There is supposed to be uniformity and consistency from one federal agency to another in the polygraph process, especially since all receive their training and certification from DACA, and annual inspections and required yearly refresher training are designed to ensure that this is so. However, at the management level, which usually consists of big egos who aren't polygraph examiners but rather administrators trying to get promoted, there are sometimes outside forces that can affect a program in a negative manner.
I'm more familiar with the FBI program than that of the "spooks" at CIA. I do know that NSA conducts periodical CI exams of its employees, and I've never agreed with this procedure. Once someone is proven (to the best ability of an agency) to be a qualified applicant with no known skeletons in his closet, he should not be subject to polygraph exams every year or, God forbid, several times a year. You say that "Better background investigations and ongoing security education is the solution, and not polygraphs." I absolutely agree with you. While the polygraph is a good screening tool at the entry level, I don't agree with its continued, periodical use with proven employees, and there has been some research regarding the utility of repeated polygraph exams.
The second article is a bit more dubious, since we aren't privy to the background of the former manager's story except from his own point of view. Retaliation? Maybe and maybe not. But it's ironic, certainly.
Interesting that you would advocate "behavioral countermeasures" while not recommending mental or physical countermeasures. Again, I agree. If someone is truly one of the tiny minority who is a "false positive," I've stated before that you must defend your own integrity.
Thank you for posting something interesting, informative, and without portraying yourself as an expert in the polygraph process. Your opinion is valued, and I respect that. If only some of the more ignorant and vocal regulars on this forum could be more like you.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 12, 2009, 10:33 PMEvan S,
Do you have any credentials in the field of polygraphy? Then you are just speculating, and have no business criticizing the polygraph.
This is the sort of answer we get here from polygraphers when asked simple questions, or relate our own personal experiences with the polygraph. As far as they are concerned, even the NAS is not qualified to criticize or render conclusions regarding the legitimacy of the polygraph as a scientific tool! Why? They haven't any credentials in polygraphy!
Though they do cut and past doctored excerpts from the NAS report to suit their own purpose.
TC
Do you have any credentials in the field of polygraphy? Then you are just speculating, and have no business criticizing the polygraph.
This is the sort of answer we get here from polygraphers when asked simple questions, or relate our own personal experiences with the polygraph. As far as they are concerned, even the NAS is not qualified to criticize or render conclusions regarding the legitimacy of the polygraph as a scientific tool! Why? They haven't any credentials in polygraphy!
Though they do cut and past doctored excerpts from the NAS report to suit their own purpose.
TC
Posted by Evan S
- May 12, 2009, 09:55 PMLBCB:
Regarding your assertion that all federal polygraph examiners are highly trained and follow strict standards, you should check out the following website, in which the inconsistency of the security screening polygraph is reported, in particular NSA and CIA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901415_pf.html
Even an advocate of the polygraph should find this article disturbing. I thought all federal polygraphers are trained at DACA (DODPI) and therefore, regardless of what federal organization they are employed, must produce identical results within minimal acceptable error. For the process to be scientifically valid, the empirical results must be both repeatable and reproducible. We expect blood/drug testing to satisfy these requirements, should we also expect the polygraph as well?
Could it be that federal polygraphers receive additional training at the organization they're assigned, possibly reflecting "institutionalized bias"?
Also check out this website.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2007/04/sullivan.html
My John Sullivan has filed a lawsuit against the CIA, and in an interview has stated his CIA polygraph was "rigged." He ran the CIA polygraph division during his tenure. A "victim of his own medicine"?
My only experience with the polygraph is that my job (at a large aerospace facility in Southern California) requires that I take and pass CI-type polygraphs. I took two in 1994 and four in 2000. The polygraphs were a disgrace. I wish to emphasize that national security is too important to be left to a polygraph. Better background investigations and ongoing security education is the solution, and not polygraphs.
Regarding countermeasures, I knew that it was just a matter of time before I would pass, as long I was willing to take the polygraphs as many times as requested and answered all relevant questions in the negative. Makes absolutely no difference if the examinee is the 1/10000 who is truly guilty of committing espionage/sabotage/terrorism or the 9999/10000 who is innocent. Therefore I would probably not recommend mental or physical countermeasures, but maybe behavioral countermeasures.
A coin will eventually land on heads if tossed enough times.
Regards,
Evan S
Regarding your assertion that all federal polygraph examiners are highly trained and follow strict standards, you should check out the following website, in which the inconsistency of the security screening polygraph is reported, in particular NSA and CIA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901415_pf.html
Even an advocate of the polygraph should find this article disturbing. I thought all federal polygraphers are trained at DACA (DODPI) and therefore, regardless of what federal organization they are employed, must produce identical results within minimal acceptable error. For the process to be scientifically valid, the empirical results must be both repeatable and reproducible. We expect blood/drug testing to satisfy these requirements, should we also expect the polygraph as well?
Could it be that federal polygraphers receive additional training at the organization they're assigned, possibly reflecting "institutionalized bias"?
Also check out this website.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2007/04/sullivan.html
My John Sullivan has filed a lawsuit against the CIA, and in an interview has stated his CIA polygraph was "rigged." He ran the CIA polygraph division during his tenure. A "victim of his own medicine"?
My only experience with the polygraph is that my job (at a large aerospace facility in Southern California) requires that I take and pass CI-type polygraphs. I took two in 1994 and four in 2000. The polygraphs were a disgrace. I wish to emphasize that national security is too important to be left to a polygraph. Better background investigations and ongoing security education is the solution, and not polygraphs.
Regarding countermeasures, I knew that it was just a matter of time before I would pass, as long I was willing to take the polygraphs as many times as requested and answered all relevant questions in the negative. Makes absolutely no difference if the examinee is the 1/10000 who is truly guilty of committing espionage/sabotage/terrorism or the 9999/10000 who is innocent. Therefore I would probably not recommend mental or physical countermeasures, but maybe behavioral countermeasures.
A coin will eventually land on heads if tossed enough times.
Regards,
Evan S
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 12, 2009, 06:58 PMNice try, George, but those are not likely possible explanations. I can assure you that I am well aware of the FBI's scoring criteria since the early 90s, and nothing with regard to test data analysis would explain how you could fail EVERY relevant question on the FBI screening exam. Believe me or not, I can state this for a fact.
Examiner error. Well, perhaps if the examiner were a private examiner who didn't know what he was doing and hadn't been trained and certified to strict standards as required for all federal polygraph examiners. But even assuming that the FBI's all-time most incompetent examiner conducted your exam, polygraphs at the federal level require a quality control review of each and every exam. The quality control examiners at the federal level are the best polygraph examiners in their agencies, and surely they would have caught the outlandish examiner error that it would have taken to err on every relevant question. And honestly, do you really think this happened in your case? Despite what you might wish to be fact, and despite what your small group of "anti-" supporters on this website wish to believe, can you honestly say that your examiner came across as incompetent, stupid, or inexperienced? No, I didn't think so.
Examiner misconduct. That's a very, very strong accusation, George. What would motivate a federal polygraph examiner, who has a cushy position in a renowned government agency, to pick you out of hundreds or even thousands of applicants as the one person to screw with--especially on EVERY relevant question. After all, it only takes failure on one relevant question to fail an examinee. From what I can gather, you were a well-qualified applicant with special skills--not someone to take lightly or to throw away. If someone with your qualifications came into my polygraph room, I would do everything I could to get you through the polygraph unless you were actually deceptive or you didn't follow instructions.
I believe that somehow--whether you want to call it countermeasures or not--you screwed with the exam process, and you paid for it, thus costing yourself a good career and costing the government an excellent asset. There's no other plausible explanation for it, George, unless we are to believe that, like the immaculate conception, your polygraph failure on every relevant question was a miracle.
To the unsuspecting reader of this forum, just passing by because you're worried about taking a polygraph in the near future, I once again counsel you to avoid the "snake oil" George is selling when he tells you that you must mess around with the polygraph process in order to pass the exam. Most people pass the exam, and those who don't are often the ones who don't follow instructions and think they have to engage in unsupportable actions with no basis in research. George Maschke seems like a nice guy, and I think his intentions may actually be honorable. However, he is extremely misguided, and you listen to an inexperienced man's advice at your own peril.
Examiner error. Well, perhaps if the examiner were a private examiner who didn't know what he was doing and hadn't been trained and certified to strict standards as required for all federal polygraph examiners. But even assuming that the FBI's all-time most incompetent examiner conducted your exam, polygraphs at the federal level require a quality control review of each and every exam. The quality control examiners at the federal level are the best polygraph examiners in their agencies, and surely they would have caught the outlandish examiner error that it would have taken to err on every relevant question. And honestly, do you really think this happened in your case? Despite what you might wish to be fact, and despite what your small group of "anti-" supporters on this website wish to believe, can you honestly say that your examiner came across as incompetent, stupid, or inexperienced? No, I didn't think so.
Examiner misconduct. That's a very, very strong accusation, George. What would motivate a federal polygraph examiner, who has a cushy position in a renowned government agency, to pick you out of hundreds or even thousands of applicants as the one person to screw with--especially on EVERY relevant question. After all, it only takes failure on one relevant question to fail an examinee. From what I can gather, you were a well-qualified applicant with special skills--not someone to take lightly or to throw away. If someone with your qualifications came into my polygraph room, I would do everything I could to get you through the polygraph unless you were actually deceptive or you didn't follow instructions.
I believe that somehow--whether you want to call it countermeasures or not--you screwed with the exam process, and you paid for it, thus costing yourself a good career and costing the government an excellent asset. There's no other plausible explanation for it, George, unless we are to believe that, like the immaculate conception, your polygraph failure on every relevant question was a miracle.
To the unsuspecting reader of this forum, just passing by because you're worried about taking a polygraph in the near future, I once again counsel you to avoid the "snake oil" George is selling when he tells you that you must mess around with the polygraph process in order to pass the exam. Most people pass the exam, and those who don't are often the ones who don't follow instructions and think they have to engage in unsupportable actions with no basis in research. George Maschke seems like a nice guy, and I think his intentions may actually be honorable. However, he is extremely misguided, and you listen to an inexperienced man's advice at your own peril.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 12, 2009, 01:15 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 12, 2009, 11:19 AMYou can sit there and claim that it was the polygraph that was at fault, and you can blame the examiner.However, no one fails every relevant question on a screening exam without bearing most of the blame himself.
There are other possible explanations that you haven't considered, for example: 1) possibly different scoring criteria in the immediate aftermath of the arrest of CIA spy Aldrich Ames (who beat the polygraph); you'll recall that my FBI polygraph was in 1995, the year after Ames' arrest, and the FBI had just recently implemented its pre-employment polygraph screening program; during this same period hundreds of innocent CIA employees who had trouble passing polygraph screening exams were in "polygraph limbo," 2) examiner error, 3) examiner misconduct.
Again, I answered all relevant questions truthfully and did not use countermeasures of any kind, "spontaneous" or otherwise. In your initial post in this message thread, you suggest that because I failed my FBI polygraph--and a fortiori because I failed every relevant question--that I am not to be trusted. But considering that I told the truth (and a thorough background investigation failed to corroborate any of the polygrapher's accusations of deception) and that the consensus view of the scientific community is that polygraphy has no scientific basis, I say that it is polygraphs -- and those who operate them -- that are not to be trusted.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 12, 2009, 11:19 AMGeorge wrote:
Yesterday you stated this as conjecture. Today you state it as if it were a fact. You're wrong. I did not use countermeasures of any kind on my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I followed the polygrapher's instructions and answered all questions truthfully.
George, as you should know, the FBI screening exam contains at least SIX relevant issues. When an examinee fails the exam, it is almost ALWAYS on one or perhaps two relevant questions. One is the norm, with two being the exception. Three might occur (and this is my educated and experienced guess) less than once in 1000 exams. But SIX? I've never even heard of it happening except in your case. It just doesn't happen to an examinee who is honest and not messing around during the exam. The reason it doesn't happen is that when an examinee has an issue or two of great concern to him/her, that is where his/her focus is concentrated on the exam. This focus dampens any minor concern that the examinee might have on other relevant issues.
Now, as I said before, I believe you engaged in spontaneous countermeasures, which you know as well as I do--and research supports this--can cause an examinee to appear more deceptive. Why do I state it as fact rather than conjecture? Because it's the only reasonable explanation, since the only other possibilities are, first, that you actually lied on ALL of the relevant questions, which I don't believe despite not knowing you personally. I don't think that any well-qualified, intelligent person, which I assume you to be, has that many skeletons in his closet.
The second possibility for you having failed every relevant question is that for whatever reason--faulty pre-test research on your part or simply assumptions that you were bright enough to figure out--you made those questions more relevant for yourself than they should have been, and you tried to calm yourself whenever a relevant question came up, which backfired on you because you made the relevant questions even stronger. But of course, this possibility can also be viewed as spontaneous countermeasures, just not to the control questions as would normally be the case in someone attempting countermeasures.
You can sit there and claim that it was the polygraph that was at fault, and you can blame the examiner. However, no one fails every relevant question on a screening exam without bearing most of the blame himself.
Now, Sergeant, for your silly reasoning. You state:
For that to make any sense whatsoever you would have be to able to prove that had the examinee not taken George's advice they would have passed the polygraph.
This makes more sense than your, George's and other "anti-" forum regulars' assumption that an innocent person needs to attempt countermeasures to ensure that he/she passes the polygraph exam. Assuming that an innocent examinee (innocent with regard to the relevant issues) is somehow able to effectively control his/her physiology and avoid detection, how can you prove that he/she wouldn't have passed the exam anyhow? You can't, plain and simple. And as I keep reminding you, the NAS, which you use to support yourself since you have no experience or training of your own, states that countermeasures can cause an examinee to appear more, not less, deceptive.
The innocent examinee increases his or her chances of passing the polygraph by simply following the examiner's instructions and avoiding countermeasure attempts which have no evidence of being effective at all with an innocent examinee.
Which leads us to the question I keep asking, and to which George gave his unsupportable conjecture rather than a cogent answer:
Where are all the GUILTY examinees (guilty with regard to the relevant issues) who used the countermeasures cited in George's little book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, to pass the exam while lying to the relevant issues? That's right, we never hear from them, do we? Not even on an anonymous forum. And George's claim that behind the scenes there are people who have provided "private feedback" that supports TLBTLD is a cop-out.
As an experienced polygraph examiner, I repeat to the reader who might come to this website: The information you obtain from these people, all of whom have absolutely no experience with the polygraph other than having failed one or more polygraphs, is faulty, and you use it at your own peril. They tell you there's no poisonous snake in the box and to shove your hand in there, yet they won't even put their own hand in the box. They don't practice what they preach, and they can't support their claims.
Yesterday you stated this as conjecture. Today you state it as if it were a fact. You're wrong. I did not use countermeasures of any kind on my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I followed the polygrapher's instructions and answered all questions truthfully.
George, as you should know, the FBI screening exam contains at least SIX relevant issues. When an examinee fails the exam, it is almost ALWAYS on one or perhaps two relevant questions. One is the norm, with two being the exception. Three might occur (and this is my educated and experienced guess) less than once in 1000 exams. But SIX? I've never even heard of it happening except in your case. It just doesn't happen to an examinee who is honest and not messing around during the exam. The reason it doesn't happen is that when an examinee has an issue or two of great concern to him/her, that is where his/her focus is concentrated on the exam. This focus dampens any minor concern that the examinee might have on other relevant issues.
Now, as I said before, I believe you engaged in spontaneous countermeasures, which you know as well as I do--and research supports this--can cause an examinee to appear more deceptive. Why do I state it as fact rather than conjecture? Because it's the only reasonable explanation, since the only other possibilities are, first, that you actually lied on ALL of the relevant questions, which I don't believe despite not knowing you personally. I don't think that any well-qualified, intelligent person, which I assume you to be, has that many skeletons in his closet.
The second possibility for you having failed every relevant question is that for whatever reason--faulty pre-test research on your part or simply assumptions that you were bright enough to figure out--you made those questions more relevant for yourself than they should have been, and you tried to calm yourself whenever a relevant question came up, which backfired on you because you made the relevant questions even stronger. But of course, this possibility can also be viewed as spontaneous countermeasures, just not to the control questions as would normally be the case in someone attempting countermeasures.
You can sit there and claim that it was the polygraph that was at fault, and you can blame the examiner. However, no one fails every relevant question on a screening exam without bearing most of the blame himself.
Now, Sergeant, for your silly reasoning. You state:
For that to make any sense whatsoever you would have be to able to prove that had the examinee not taken George's advice they would have passed the polygraph.
This makes more sense than your, George's and other "anti-" forum regulars' assumption that an innocent person needs to attempt countermeasures to ensure that he/she passes the polygraph exam. Assuming that an innocent examinee (innocent with regard to the relevant issues) is somehow able to effectively control his/her physiology and avoid detection, how can you prove that he/she wouldn't have passed the exam anyhow? You can't, plain and simple. And as I keep reminding you, the NAS, which you use to support yourself since you have no experience or training of your own, states that countermeasures can cause an examinee to appear more, not less, deceptive.
The innocent examinee increases his or her chances of passing the polygraph by simply following the examiner's instructions and avoiding countermeasure attempts which have no evidence of being effective at all with an innocent examinee.
Which leads us to the question I keep asking, and to which George gave his unsupportable conjecture rather than a cogent answer:
Where are all the GUILTY examinees (guilty with regard to the relevant issues) who used the countermeasures cited in George's little book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, to pass the exam while lying to the relevant issues? That's right, we never hear from them, do we? Not even on an anonymous forum. And George's claim that behind the scenes there are people who have provided "private feedback" that supports TLBTLD is a cop-out.
As an experienced polygraph examiner, I repeat to the reader who might come to this website: The information you obtain from these people, all of whom have absolutely no experience with the polygraph other than having failed one or more polygraphs, is faulty, and you use it at your own peril. They tell you there's no poisonous snake in the box and to shove your hand in there, yet they won't even put their own hand in the box. They don't practice what they preach, and they can't support their claims.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 12, 2009, 05:53 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 11, 2009, 08:10 PMSergeant, when a person takes a polygraph exam, he/she signs a consent form. The polygraph is a required part of the job application process in most police departments and federal agencies. There is no recourse for someone who, like yourself, failed multiple polygraph exams in a job application process. I'm sure you signed consent forms for each of your polygraphs, correct? Also, unlike you, George, Gino, and others on this website who make claims you have no business making regarding a process in which you have no actual experience, polygraph examiners are trained and certified in the process, so they are qualified to conduct exams and render professional opinions and advice.The consent form? That's a weak cop-out that simply bypasses the question.
You have asserted that anyone who heeds George's advice and fails should sue him. For that to make any sense whatsoever you would have be to able to prove that had the examinee not taken George's advice they would have passed the polygraph. By using the same logic you should agree that any examinee who takes the polygraph operator's advice (i.e. - tell the truth, follow my instructions, etc...) and still fails should have some form recourse in civil court against the examiner.
And I have to agree with an earlier post on this thread that starting such a thread on your part indicates you are not here for any serious discussion.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 12, 2009, 12:00 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 11, 2009, 10:55 PM...I don't need to go through a point-by-point critique of TLBTLD....
To date, you haven't made any specific specific criticism of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, preferring to speak in generalities instead. I stand by what we've written.
QuoteHowever, George takes a good little information booklet and then dives off a cliff with it. Because of his personal vendetta against the polygraph, due to his having failed every relevant question on an FBI exam, he takes that dive by claiming that he knows how to "beat" the polygraph, and then he hits rock bottom when he counsels others how to do so, despite his own lack of experience, training or qualifications.
What motivates me is not a "personal vendetta against the polygraph" but justified concern over the serious harm that misplaced official reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy is causing to national security, public safety, and individuals.
Quote...
Which brings us back to a question I've asked multiple times on this forum: Where are all the people who read TLBTLD, lie to the relevant questions, and pass the polygraph by using the countermeasures advocated by George, Gino, and all of you sycophants who follow them around? We never hear from those people, do we? You can say, "Well, they don't post that information here because they might get caught." That's a lame excuse, especially since this is a very anonymous forum--I'm proof of that anonymity myself.
The vast majority (>99%) of those who download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector never post to this forum, nor do they contact AntiPolygraph.org by other means. But the feedback that we have received privately over the more than eight years that AntiPolygraph.org has been on-line does not support the view that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures, or that countermeasures are ineffective.
QuoteGeorge failed every relevant question on his FBI exam because he attempted spontaneous countermeasures and it backfired on him.
Yesterday you stated this as conjecture. Today you state it as if it were a fact. You're wrong. I did not use countermeasures of any kind on my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I followed the polygrapher's instructions and answered all questions truthfully.
QuoteIn all my experience, I can think of only one other reason why someone with no experience would fail EVERY relevant question, since that is unheard of--and that is that the person actually lied to every relevant question. I don't believe that George was lying to every relevant question--no one is THAT involved in nefarious behavior. Studies show that spontaneous countermeasures can increase a person's appearance of deceptiveness. In short, George screwed himself, and now he is unwittinly screwing others, and I've seen it firsthand in the polygraph room.
However much you may wish to lay the blame for my having failed the polygraph at my feet, the fact of the matter is that I answered all questions truthfully and did not engage in countermeasures of any kind.
QuoteSince there are no studies and no evidence that countermeasures work, and no witnesses to attest that they do, isn't it completely ignorant for you and others like you to claim, as if you are experts in the matter, that they work?
There are indeed peer-reviewed studies that indicate that countermeasures work. They are referenced in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. And as we point out in Chapter 1, in a peer-reviewed survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research member opinion, 99% of respondents agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions."