- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Dec 24, 2003, 06:41 PMTorpedo,
Good book.
-Marty
Good book.
-Marty
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 24, 2003, 05:27 PMChapter 10 of Matte's book offers all of the "secrets"
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 24, 2003, 05:30 AMTorpedo,
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say I "tout knowledge of the military system." In any event, AntiPolygraph.org's FOIA request for the Federal PDD Examiner Handbook was not a "general" request: it was a specific request for a precisely identified document.
My point is that in light of the public release of the Widup & Barland report, DSS's withholding of Chapter 7 (just one of numerous portions of the Handbook withheld) on the ground that releasing it "could enable circumvention of the polygraph test by others" rings hollow.
It is true that information about the "numbers test" has long been available elsewhere (for example, at p. 100 of David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd ed., 1998). However, the cited passage from the Widup & Barland report provides what seems to be the most detailed publicly available documentation of DoDPI's procedure for administering the "numbers test," and as such, it is worthy of note.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say I "tout knowledge of the military system." In any event, AntiPolygraph.org's FOIA request for the Federal PDD Examiner Handbook was not a "general" request: it was a specific request for a precisely identified document.
My point is that in light of the public release of the Widup & Barland report, DSS's withholding of Chapter 7 (just one of numerous portions of the Handbook withheld) on the ground that releasing it "could enable circumvention of the polygraph test by others" rings hollow.
It is true that information about the "numbers test" has long been available elsewhere (for example, at p. 100 of David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd ed., 1998). However, the cited passage from the Widup & Barland report provides what seems to be the most detailed publicly available documentation of DoDPI's procedure for administering the "numbers test," and as such, it is worthy of note.
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 23, 2003, 04:27 PMGeorge, perhaps if you had simply asked for that section which is CONTAINED in a larger work...then your request might have been approved. You tout knowledge ofthe military system and you should KNOW that "general" FOIA requests are less likely to be approved when you are seeking specific information...hence your mountain....plus, you KNOW that the information about the stim/acquaintance test is and always has been available elsewhere....just what is your point?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 23, 2003, 03:59 PMQuote from: what??? on Dec 23, 2003, 02:51 PM...This board draws the biggest collection and the most variety of nuts I have ever seen...
So what brings you here?
Posted by what???
- Dec 23, 2003, 02:51 PMWell Ruth your post demonstrates one thing for sure. This board draws the biggest collection and the most variety of nuts I have ever seen. I have read your post serveral times and I still have no idea what it in the hell you are talking about.
Posted by ruth sproull
- Dec 23, 2003, 09:17 AMThank you for this website that discloses some of the hypocrisy in the propaganda about so-called "lie detector tests." I'm the "Ruth Sproull" whose op-ed appears if you "yahoo" or "google" about "Bush's Brave New Wage World." In this strange global authoritarian tangle we're encountering presently, every breath toward free thought helps us evolve toward the spiritual freedom humanity deserves. Merry Christmas, in the sense of the anointing everyone can claim, every day, for every moment we choose liberty,
Ruth, 12-23-03
Ruth, 12-23-03
Posted by howie
- Dec 23, 2003, 06:17 AMsort of makes sense, considering how complex the speech-mechanism is, and knowing how much evolutionary worth there is in lying, and seeing that any objection to lying comes from an evaluation based on a moral systen with no physiological roots, it seems pretty obviouse that there is no measurable difference between someone who is at that moment lying and someone who is not.
this dream of truth serums et al. is basically a reflection of the assumption of the christian right that going against the will of god will result in a change that can be registered by a machine or made impossible by drugs.
this dream of truth serums et al. is basically a reflection of the assumption of the christian right that going against the will of god will result in a change that can be registered by a machine or made impossible by drugs.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 23, 2003, 03:02 AMCanadian Crusader,
While numerous polygraphers do follow (and sometimes participate in) the discussions on this message board, the relatively large number of views this message thread has received in a relatively short time is mainly attributable to its having been linked to from elsewhere.
Torpedo,
You write that I "know" why DSS withheld the information on the "numbers test" from the Federal PDD Examiner Handbook requested under the Freedom of Information Act. In light of the previously released report by Widup and Barland, it appears that DSS's decision to withhold such information was arbitrary and capricious, and based primarily on the identity of the requester, rather than legitimate concern about enabling "circumvention of the polygraph test by others."
While numerous polygraphers do follow (and sometimes participate in) the discussions on this message board, the relatively large number of views this message thread has received in a relatively short time is mainly attributable to its having been linked to from elsewhere.
Torpedo,
You write that I "know" why DSS withheld the information on the "numbers test" from the Federal PDD Examiner Handbook requested under the Freedom of Information Act. In light of the previously released report by Widup and Barland, it appears that DSS's decision to withhold such information was arbitrary and capricious, and based primarily on the identity of the requester, rather than legitimate concern about enabling "circumvention of the polygraph test by others."
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 22, 2003, 06:53 PMHate to shock you Crusader....but it isn't any secret...never was....information about this technique has appearded in many publications....even legitimite ones. George knows why the information was withheld...he is just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...and his sheep (I guess that includes you!) are following the sound of his trumpet.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Dec 22, 2003, 06:17 PMThe polygraphers on this board slay me with their dribble that detecting countermeasures and the poly "work". This thread, posted just this morning, has already recived 440 plus views. Word sure gets out quick when George posts info regarding the secret inside workings of polygraphy.
Yes I am assuming that it is mostly polygraphers that are causing the large number of views.
If the polygraph "works" and you sheep can detect countermeasures then why such a big concern as demonstrated by the number of views to this thread?
Yes I am assuming that it is mostly polygraphers that are causing the large number of views.
If the polygraph "works" and you sheep can detect countermeasures then why such a big concern as demonstrated by the number of views to this thread?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 22, 2003, 09:43 AMWhen AntiPolygraph.org requested the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook under the Freedom of Information Act, the Defense Security Service (DSS) withheld, among other portions, Chapter 7, which concerns the "acquaintance test" (also called a "numbers test" or "stim test"), a bit of gimmickry used to trick examinees into believing that the polygraph can detect deception. DSS claimed that "disclosure could enable circumvention of the polygraph test by others."
However, it turns out that a DoDPI report previously approved for public release includes detailed instructions on how to administer the "numbers test." Richard Widup and Gordon H. Barland's March 1994 report, "Effect of the Location of the Numbers Test on Examiner Decision Rates in Criminal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Tests" may be downloaded as an 870 kb PDF file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi94-r-0015.pdf
The procedure for the "numbers test" is described at pp. 4-5 (14-15 of the PDF file):
Many polygraph subjects do show a significant physiological response when they reach the number they chose. But such responses have nothing to do with deception. When the subject replies 'No' to the number he wrote, he isn't attempting to deceive the polygrapher: he is merely following instructions. The process of having the subject pick the number and write it with his weak hand tends to make that number significant to him compared with the other numbers in the series. For more on "stim tests," see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
However, it turns out that a DoDPI report previously approved for public release includes detailed instructions on how to administer the "numbers test." Richard Widup and Gordon H. Barland's March 1994 report, "Effect of the Location of the Numbers Test on Examiner Decision Rates in Criminal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Tests" may be downloaded as an 870 kb PDF file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi94-r-0015.pdf
The procedure for the "numbers test" is described at pp. 4-5 (14-15 of the PDF file):
QuoteProcedure
The manner in which the numbers test was explained to the examinee was left to the discretion of the individual examiner. Although all examiners learned a standard procedure at DoDPI, with experience they typically develop an individualized style of administration. No attempt was made to standardize the administration of the numbers test just for this study. A typical numbers test might be conducted as follows.
"John, I am now going to conduct a test in which I want you to answer 'No' to all of the questions. The main purpose of this test is to determine if you are physiologically capable of being administered a PDD examination today. The way in which this test will be conducted is that I want you now to pick a number between 3 and 8, that is not either 3 or 8. Now, have you picked your numebr? Good. Now, please tell me your number." (The examinee answers that his number is 5.)
"Okay, John. As I recall, you are right handed, correct? Now, I want you to take this pen, and with your left hand write the number you picked on this piece of paper, somewhere in the middle. Please write the number a couple of lines high. Now, I am going to surround the number you wrote with numbers that I will write. I am now going to place this paper on the wall in front of you."
"We will now go over the way in which this test will be conducted. Keep in mind that I want you to answer 'No' to all the questions. The test will go this way. Regarding the number you wrote on that piece of paper, did you write the number 2? (The examinee answers 'No.') Did you write the number 3? (Answer: No.) Did you write the number 4? (Answer: No.) Did you write the number 5?" (Answer: No.)
"John, what is that answer? (The subject answers that the response was a lie.) That's right, John; that is a lie. Now, both you and I know that you wrote the number 5, correct? In fact, I saw you take your left hand and write that number on that piece of paper. I want you to answer 'No' nonetheless, and I will tell you why after this test is over. Did you write the number 6? (Answer: No.) Did you write the number 7? (Answer: No.) Did you write the number 8? (Answer: No.) Very good, John. Now I am going to start at the top of the list and go to the bottom, and I want you to follow along with me with your eyes, answering each question with a 'No.' John, do you have any questions? Now I will start the test."
At this point the test is administered. Immediately after the numbers test, the examiner shows the chart to the subject, pointing out the responses which occurred at the selected number. The examiner asks the subject what caused those responses. Most subjects reply that they do not know, whereupon the examiner replies "John, these responses occurred when you lied about the number you wrote. Now, lying about a number is normally not a big thing, is it? But it was to you, John, because you saw how big those responses were. Now the other questions on the main test are more important, aren't they? John, you can imagine how large those responses would be if you are lying to me about any or [sic, correct "of"] those, can't you? That's the reason you need to be 100% truthful with me here today."
Many polygraph subjects do show a significant physiological response when they reach the number they chose. But such responses have nothing to do with deception. When the subject replies 'No' to the number he wrote, he isn't attempting to deceive the polygrapher: he is merely following instructions. The process of having the subject pick the number and write it with his weak hand tends to make that number significant to him compared with the other numbers in the series. For more on "stim tests," see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.