Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 20, 2001, 12:02 PM
The following challenge was e-mailed to Illinois Polygraph Society (IPS) Secretary Thomas Ivey <iis@heart.net>, who is listed on PolygraphPlace.com as the point of contact for the IPS, with a request that it be forwarded to IPS President Harry Reed.

Dear President Reed:

I am a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a website dedicated to exposing polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse, and to the ultimate abolishment of polygraphy.

According to reporter Brad Burke <bburke@pjstar.com> of the Peoria Journal Star, you claim that experienced polygraph professionals can easily detect attempts to foil polygraph tests, stating, "They would have to be a very, very sophisticated person to manipulate the results." The comments to which I refer appear in Mr. Burke's 20 October 2001 article, "Parents negotiate lie detector terms":

http://www.pjstar.com/news/topnews/g65119a.html

However, on 23 July 2001, at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Professor Charles R. Honts of Boise State University explicitly stated that polygraph examiners cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You may listen to his remarks on polygraph countermeasures in RealPlayer format at:

http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/dbasse/072301_2.rm

You may download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at:

http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

In addition, the FBI's recently retired senior scientific expert on polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts in September 1997 that anyone can be taught to beat a polygraph test in a few minutes. You can read his opening statement at:

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml

Two senior scientific experts on polygraphy have contradicted your claim that an experienced polygrapher can easily detect countermeasures attempts. I challenge you to back up your claim by citing any scientific research that supports it. If you are unable to cite any such research, then please explain how an experienced polygrapher can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels.

Please note that this challenge will be posted to the Polygraph Policy forum of the AntiPolygraph.org message board at:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=6.0

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

cc: Brad Burke, Peoria Journal Star