- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Mrs October 2014
- Sep 28, 2014, 04:21 PMWell I used dougs Manuel and it's helped me a lot I'm telling the truth and I would hate to take a polygraph test knowing I told the truth but fail it anyway... So thanks doug and thanks too the anti polygraph folks
Posted by Ex Member
- Sep 26, 2014, 04:05 PMQuote from: quickfix on Sep 26, 2014, 01:07 PMA mock crime is in fact a staged event; there are no real consequences to being detected using CMs in a staged-event polygraph.Without a genuine F3 effect, this type of nonsense has no value.How does the potential for consequences affect the ability of the examinee to execute, and the polygrapher's ability to detect, countermeasures?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 26, 2014, 03:22 PMquickfix, if we use your logic, then all polygraph analog (laboratory) studies should be deemed worthless.
That would include Dr. Rovner's study which suggests that access to countermeasure information does not appreciably affect polygraph accuracy.
I think the reality of the matter is that the polygraph establishment is scared to death of being humiliated by informed and motivated individuals artfully applying countermeasures -- and beating the vaunted liebox like a drum.
Such an outcome wouldn't be good for bu$ine$$.
That would include Dr. Rovner's study which suggests that access to countermeasure information does not appreciably affect polygraph accuracy.
I think the reality of the matter is that the polygraph establishment is scared to death of being humiliated by informed and motivated individuals artfully applying countermeasures -- and beating the vaunted liebox like a drum.
Such an outcome wouldn't be good for bu$ine$$.
Posted by quickfix
- Sep 26, 2014, 01:07 PMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 25, 2014, 04:31 PMquickfix, let me reiterate that the polygraph challenge series would require a significant amount of prize money, not "prizes" as you depict the term in a TV game show context.To be sure, this would not be a "stage event" -- conditions would be as realistic as possible all the way around.Each challenge would involve a mock crime that is video recorded. Testing would be done privately, but exhibited on CCTV to seminar attendees and simultaneously recorded for future reference. Why the need for prize money? The overarching prerequisite for countermeasurre success is motivation, and money can be a great motivator.It is my opinion that the CM challengers would beat the randomly chosen polygraphers about fifty percent of the time, but I wouldn't be surprised it it were more.Mr Mangan: prize money or prize, makes no difference. A mock crime is in fact a staged event; there are no real consequences to being detected using CMs in a staged-event polygraph. Without a genuine F3 effect, this type of nonsense has no value. Winning prize money is not a motivator; avoiding prison or being disqualified from a job application is; real-life events with real-life consequences if caught using CMs. That is the reason your idea is completely idiotic.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Sep 25, 2014, 05:39 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 25, 2014, 09:21 AMSo, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!You can call it whatever you like, Doug; it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome of a PE in favor of the person being tested.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 25, 2014, 09:24 AM
No, it is an attempt by the person being tested to avoid being falsely accused of deception!
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 25, 2014, 04:31 PMquickfix, let me reiterate that the polygraph challenge series would require a significant amount of prize money, not "prizes" as you depict the term in a TV game show context.
To be sure, this would not be a "stage event" -- conditions would be as realistic as possible all the way around.
Each challenge would involve a mock crime that is video recorded. Testing would be done privately, but exhibited on CCTV to seminar attendees and simultaneously recorded for future reference.
Why the need for prize money? The overarching prerequisite for countermeasurre success is motivation, and money can be a great motivator.
It is my opinion that the CM challengers would beat the randomly chosen polygraphers about fifty percent of the time, but I wouldn't be surprised it it were more.
To be sure, this would not be a "stage event" -- conditions would be as realistic as possible all the way around.
Each challenge would involve a mock crime that is video recorded. Testing would be done privately, but exhibited on CCTV to seminar attendees and simultaneously recorded for future reference.
Why the need for prize money? The overarching prerequisite for countermeasurre success is motivation, and money can be a great motivator.
It is my opinion that the CM challengers would beat the randomly chosen polygraphers about fifty percent of the time, but I wouldn't be surprised it it were more.
Posted by quickfix
- Sep 25, 2014, 03:51 PMGeorge: yes, you are correct in that confirmed CM cases are sent to NNCA in a sanitized version; They are sanitized for NCCA at NCCA's request for very specific reasons; it does not mean they may be released to the public. NCCA is a governmental agency under DOD (DIA), not the public or a private citizen.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 25, 2014, 03:25 PMThe evidence that the polygraph community doesn't have a reliable method of countermeasure detection is that no documentation of such a method is to be found in any of the polygraph literature.What does that mean, "the polygraph community"? That's your evidence? That the "polygraph community" has nothing in writing? How do you know? Very lame George!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 25, 2014, 03:25 PMQuote from: quickfix on Sep 25, 2014, 03:09 PMGeorge:you know as well as I do that posting confirmed CM cases on a website would violate the provisions of the federal Privacy Act.My agency has in fact obtained numerous CM admissions from those who admitted they attempted CMs based on reading either TLBTLD, and buying Doug's garbage.Others, as you mention, did so without the "benefit" of either.BTW, where is YOUR evidence that we CAN'T detect "properly-employed" CMs?Do you have the charts?Names of those who successfully employed CMs?Show us!Prove we can't detect CMs!
quickfix,
Actually, there is a way that data from confirmed countermeasure cases could be published without violating the Privacy Act. It is my understanding that various federal agencies routinely "sanitize" polygraph charts and examinee statements from "confirmed countermeasure" cases and send them to NCCA. So the Privacy Act does not prevent such data, or research based on it, from being published.
The evidence that the polygraph community doesn't have a reliable method of countermeasure detection is that no documentation of such a method is to be found in any of the polygraph literature.
The existence of Operation Lie Busters also suggests that the federal polygraph community lacks confidence in its claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.
Posted by quickfix
- Sep 25, 2014, 03:09 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 25, 2014, 09:14 AMNote that quickfix has provided no evidence that he can actually detect polygraph countermeasures.What is happening nowadays is that polygraphers are making many countermeasure accusations, and sometimes they get admissions. It seems that most admissions are to what are sometimes called "naive" countermeasures -- things done by individuals unfamiliar with polygraph procedure in the belief that it will help them to pass, such as breathing slowly or thinking calming thoughts. Federal polygraphers will take such admissions and report them as "confirmed" countermeasure cases.Admissions from individuals who have read Doug Williams' manual or AntiPolygraph.org's book are comparatively rare.George: you know as well as I do that posting confirmed CM cases on a website would violate the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. My agency has in fact obtained numerous CM admissions from those who admitted they attempted CMs based on reading either TLBTLD, and buying Doug's garbage. Others, as you mention, did so without the "benefit" of either. BTW, where is YOUR evidence that we CAN'T detect "properly-employed" CMs? Do you have the charts? Names of those who successfully employed CMs? Show us! Prove we can't detect CMs!
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 25, 2014, 09:21 AMSo, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!You can call it whatever you like, Doug; it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome of a PE in favor of the person being tested.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 25, 2014, 09:24 AMClearly, an ongoing countermeasure challenge series would shed some much needed light on this (seemingly forbidden) topic. Unfortunately, though, the polygraph industry cheerleaders apparently prefer to keep on whistling past the graveyard...Mr Mangan: this type of game show/reality tv mentality is precisely why you were trounced in the APA election. Imagine, a "polygraph challenge" with prizes! Really??? You sound utterly ridiculous!
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 25, 2014, 09:24 AMRegardless of pailryder's comments, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that for every one of quickfix's documented countermeasure failures, there were ten successful CM attempts that sailed right through.
But we'll never know -- and neither will pailryder -- as aptly applied mental countermeasures are undetectable.
Clearly, an ongoing countermeasure challenge series would shed some much needed light on this (seemingly forbidden) topic. Unfortunately, though, the polygraph industry cheerleaders apparently prefer to keep on whistling past the graveyard...
But we'll never know -- and neither will pailryder -- as aptly applied mental countermeasures are undetectable.
Clearly, an ongoing countermeasure challenge series would shed some much needed light on this (seemingly forbidden) topic. Unfortunately, though, the polygraph industry cheerleaders apparently prefer to keep on whistling past the graveyard...
Posted by Doug Williams
- Sep 25, 2014, 09:21 AMQuote from: pailryder on Sep 25, 2014, 08:55 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 24, 2014, 08:27 AMthere are valid reasons why a completely honest person might choose to use polygraph countermeasures: to mitigate the significant risk of a false positive outcome. I hope that federal polygraphers recognize this
Of course everyone has the right to choose to employ cm's, after all, every lie of deceptive misrepresentation is a cm. In order to make a truly rational, valid, informed decision a truthful subject would need to balance the probability of a false positive against the probability of cm detection, which you imply is zero, but as fix points out, is very real. If the risk of detection is greater than the risk of false positive, the use of cm by truthful subjects is a losing proposition.
Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"! Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT! The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie. There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met. In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive. But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart. That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense!
Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test? It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works. When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test". I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying. Go to the MEDIA page of my website and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened! You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!
So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart! The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception. But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures". If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test? But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions: If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"? Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works? If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud? And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions? And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job? The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES!
Polygraph operators do not want to debate the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" because they will lose. And these con men certainly don't want to answer any of the questions I have posed! They know they cannot prove the polygraph is valid and reliable as a "lie detector", and they know they can't justify their actions - so they just say that people who get my training are all lying and are only doing research on the polygraph in order to "beat the test". Again, I say that is just BULLSHIT! I have spent almost forty years proving that the "lie detector" is just a myth, and it is common knowledge that just telling the truth only works half the time, so people are smart enough to know that they must LEARN HOW TO PASS or they will be falsely accused of lying. I don't teach any so-called "countermeasures"! I don't teach people how to "beat" the test! The fact is, people are getting my manual & video/DVD and my personal training because they are telling the truth and just want to make sure they pass - they know that just telling the truth doesn't work! The methods I teach are very simple. I just show people how to remain calm when answering a relevant question and how to produce a reaction when answering the control questions so as to always produce what the polygraph operators say is a "truthful chart".
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 25, 2014, 09:14 AMpailryder,
Note that quickfix has provided no evidence that he can actually detect polygraph countermeasures.
What is happening nowadays is that polygraphers are making many countermeasure accusations, and sometimes they get admissions. It seems that most admissions are to what are sometimes called "naive" countermeasures -- things done by individuals unfamiliar with polygraph procedure in the belief that it will help them to pass, such as breathing slowly or thinking calming thoughts. Federal polygraphers will take such admissions and report them as "confirmed" countermeasure cases.
Admissions from individuals who have read Doug Williams' manual or AntiPolygraph.org's book are comparatively rare.
There is no documentation that any polygrapher can detect the kind of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Note that the polygraph community countermeasure training files AntiPolygraph.org published last year present no coherent methodology for countermeasure detection.
Nor is there evidence that not using countermeasures actually reduces an examinee's chances of being accused of using countermeasures. False countermeasure accusations are not uncommon.
Note that quickfix has provided no evidence that he can actually detect polygraph countermeasures.
What is happening nowadays is that polygraphers are making many countermeasure accusations, and sometimes they get admissions. It seems that most admissions are to what are sometimes called "naive" countermeasures -- things done by individuals unfamiliar with polygraph procedure in the belief that it will help them to pass, such as breathing slowly or thinking calming thoughts. Federal polygraphers will take such admissions and report them as "confirmed" countermeasure cases.
Admissions from individuals who have read Doug Williams' manual or AntiPolygraph.org's book are comparatively rare.
There is no documentation that any polygrapher can detect the kind of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Note that the polygraph community countermeasure training files AntiPolygraph.org published last year present no coherent methodology for countermeasure detection.
Nor is there evidence that not using countermeasures actually reduces an examinee's chances of being accused of using countermeasures. False countermeasure accusations are not uncommon.
Posted by pailryder
- Sep 25, 2014, 08:55 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 24, 2014, 08:27 AMthere are valid reasons why a completely honest person might choose to use polygraph countermeasures: to mitigate the significant risk of a false positive outcome. I hope that federal polygraphers recognize this
Of course everyone has the right to choose to employ cm's, after all, every lie of deceptive misrepresentation is a cm. In order to make a truly rational, valid, informed decision a truthful subject would need to balance the probability of a false positive against the probability of cm detection, which you imply is zero, but as fix points out, is very real. If the risk of detection is greater than the risk of false positive, the use of cm by truthful subjects is a losing proposition.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Sep 25, 2014, 08:42 AMQuote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Sep 24, 2014, 11:26 PMQuote
The parts between the front cover and back cover...
These gullible people might have had a chance if they took the test honestly.
Now that they have been disqualified from potential employment for buying Doug's junk and attempting to beat the test, the answer to your question is: anyone who follows his advice is the fool!
Gullible? so you are saying that people who read the books and educate themselves on the polygraph...ie. they understand clearly that a polygraph is a farce...People who understand that every word out of a polygraphers mouth are either a direct lie, a lie by omission or just an outright con....
These people are gullible?
But if they are ignorant of all of this then they are "honest" people who at least have a chance....These wonderfully honest people aren't gullible at all are they?
quickfix, your saying it's ok for you and the rest of the polygraph community to be dishonest, to lie, to con and deceive people. ...but anyone who knows the truth,that you and your filthy act are total bullshit... well there's no place in the world for them huh?....
Well said!
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Sep 24, 2014, 11:26 PMQuote
The parts between the front cover and back cover...
These gullible people might have had a chance if they took the test honestly.
Now that they have been disqualified from potential employment for buying Doug's junk and attempting to beat the test, the answer to your question is: anyone who follows his advice is the fool!
Gullible? so you are saying that people who read the books and educate themselves on the polygraph...ie. they understand clearly that a polygraph is a farce...People who understand that every word out of a polygraphers mouth are either a direct lie, a lie by omission or just an outright con....
These people are gullible?
But if they are ignorant of all of this then they are "honest" people who at least have a chance....
These wonderfully honest people aren't gullible at all are they? quickfix, your saying it's ok for you and the rest of the polygraph community to be dishonest, to lie, to con and deceive people. ...but anyone who knows the truth,that you and your filthy act are total bullshit... well there's no place in the world for them huh?....