Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge

[George W. Maschke]

My terms are clear.

Besides I thought I wasn't good enough for you, and is your wager open to ALL examiners to take?

Yes, the wager I offered you is open to all polygraph examiners.

[fippio]

And here i say the same thing


   I'm against polygraph ; how many lives have been ruined by polygraph??  , many people become nerveous even if they say the truth.


And polygraph failed , MILITAR EXPERTS , SPIES , DETECTIVES...are trained to beat detector lie , Do you remember the case of FBI agent who beat detector lie during years???  Polygraph  could not demonstrate nothing against him.

 accustomed people   to  use many tiomes thepolygraph can beat it in the short run , ok , one time two times you can lose against polygraph  but in the short run MANY PEOPLE CAN BEAT IT, No matter is there and profesional examinator.



But my question... how militar , spies are trained to beat polygraph?


I'm sure  that autosugestion , e.g.  if you have stolen in stores , u should think during one week before the polygraph test "i dont have stolen in stores"... i don't know if is effective . but professional know its because they change the question , so u should be prepared.

One thing its clear , people with cool head , can beat polygraph without a doubt .


Those pro-polygraph are capitalist people who only think in sell polygraph , and they are lying because say that polygraph its near to 100% effective , THIS IS REALLY A BIG LIE.
 
At the most 70% , no more .

cheers

[alterego1]

Damn, is anyone gonna ever step up to the plate to accept Andy's polygraph challenge?  I imagine coming to this site 3 years down the road, sifting through 50 pages of responses on this thread, and still seeing that no one has accepted the challenge.  

[cesium_133]

Alterego, the polyboys will never come to the plate.  Never.  Come back in three years, five, ten.  They can't do what Dr. Richardson challenges them to do, and they damn sure won't admit that they can be had by one of their own who came clean on what the ploy, er, poly actually consists of.  You might as well expect Castro or Kim to open up their political prisons for you.

If I had a new science to put out there, and someone challenged me to prove that x relevant factor of it were scientifically viable, I would jump at the chance... IF I knew I could prove it.  If not, well... being an honest man, I would withdraw the product or concept from the marketplace and either improve it or discard it.

Not so the polyboys.  They know that their machine is guesswork, pure guesswork, and that they are reading BFB that has -already- been proven to be alterable, controllable in some cases and not in others, and not standardizable as to how it should read.  Basically, BFB can read back abc for one person lying, and abc for the next person telling the truth on the same question- with or without the same response.  Never mind countermeasures, which throws in a new variable.

The polygraphers lost bigtime with EPPA.  They can't lose again, and they will do anything to keep their business...

So Dr. Richardson, good man that he is, may never see his righteous challenge taken up...

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Perhaps this is the place to go if I hope to get a reply from Dr. Richardson to a question I've already asked him twice on this forum, the first time a month ago, with no response. Because Dr. Richardson is touted on this website as the be-all, end-all of polygraph expertise, I assume that in addition to his FBI Lab work he's also conducted many polygraphs so that he actually knows what he's talking about, rather than being just another polygraph failure spouting off things he gets second-hand from other polygraph failures. The question is:

As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

Oh, and more kudos to me. I just made "Very Senior User." Hoo-rah! Now I can quit posting on this board at any time and feel that my life was a success.

[George W. Maschke]

Sunday, 28 January 2007 marks the fifth anniversary of Dr. Drew Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community to prove its claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, and still not a single taker! Nor has a single journal article or book chapter been published in the polygraph literature that explains how a polygrapher may reliably detect polygraph countermeasures!

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Ok, let me repeat . . .

Because Dr. Richardson is touted on this website as the be-all, end-all of polygraph expertise, I assume that in addition to his FBI Lab work he's also conducted many polygraphs so that he actually knows what he's talking about, rather than being just another polygraph failure spouting off things he gets second-hand from other polygraph failures. The question is:
 
As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

[Drew Richardson]

LieBabyCryBaby,

Countermeasures are of little interest to me personally.  I knew about the time I graduated from DoDPI polygraph examiner training some fifteen years ago that lie detection had little to no diagnostic validity IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMINEE COUNTERMEASURE APPLICATION.  My interest in this challenge is simply to demonstrate to those of you who do believe that there is some diagnostic value in what you do for a living that you can be beat any day of the week by any number of people with minimal training.  Again, what personally interests and saddens me is that this nonsense is used even if we existed (which we don't) in an environment in which there was an absence of viable and readily applied countermeasures.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Just as I expected, Dr. Richardson.  A cop-out.  You don't want to answer that question, and we both know why. So, who's the coward now?  

[palerider]

You would think that Dr R. would know that "programming" individuals in a "mock" crime is 5 times the folly as the proponents of this challenge deem polygraph to be. It seems to me that a challenge that is deemed as "unworthy" of the poly field would encourage the challenger to modify the challenge. Programmed crime scenarios? Please. Not that you care, but any examiner (former) who would make such a challenge has no credibility in any discipline (IMO) :-/.
If you want to test an airplane, ya gotta take it up in the air (field studies), not a wind tunnel (mock/programmed scenarios).
I doubt that famous examiners are "scared" of your challenge---I'm sure that they view the merit of your challenge as silly. Amongst examiners, I don't hear much about your challenge other than one talented examiner who you once worked with called you a (professionally speaking) light-weight douche bag. I thought that that was cruel and crude.  

 ad hominem(ly) yours, palerider

[George W. Maschke]

...Not that you care, but any examiner (former) who would make such a challenge has no credibility in any discipline (IMO) :-/.

Dr. Richardson's credibility is not at issue here. What is at issue is the credibility of a polygraph community that claims to be able to detect polygraph countermeasures, but which is unable to produce any evidence whatsoever to support this claimed ability.

The reason that Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has gone for more than five years without a single taker is that despite their public claims, polygraphers privately lack confidence in their ability to detect countermeasures and fear a public demonstration of their true abilities (or lack thereof) in this regard.

[palerider]

To state that polygraph examiners secretly have insecurities as to our collective (?) ability to detect countermeasures is like me stating here that you secretly feel like less of a whole man as a result of your desperatley attached failing hairline. It is pure speculation. The basis for his experiment is as developmentally flawed as what you folks claim polygraph practice is. Pursuing deception is like monitoring wild animals, and monitoring an animal who is bought at a pet store and tied to a tree isn't wild now, is it? Dr R has a very silly challenge. He is rather like the single man at the bar who is shouting that women have no sexuality since they ignore his advances. It's really quite embarrassing George.

[George W. Maschke]

To state that polygraph examiners secretly have insecurities as to our collective (?) ability to detect countermeasures is like me stating here that you secretly feel like less of a whole man as a result of your desperatley attached failing hairline. It is pure speculation.

No, it's not pure speculation. It's based on information from well-placed, reliable sources. One of those sources is DoDPI instructor Paul Menges, who in an article published by the American Polygraph Association journal Polygraph went so far as to suggest that providing information about polygraph countermeasures to the public should be criminalized. If polygraphers could reliably detect countermeasures, there would have been no reason for Menges to make such a radical proposal, or for the American Polygraph Association to publish it. (See my reply to Menges' article here.)

The basis for his experiment is as developmentally flawed as what you folks claim polygraph practice is. Pursuing deception is like monitoring wild animals, and monitoring an animal who is bought at a pet store and tied to a tree isn't wild now, is it? Dr R has a very silly challenge. He is rather like the single man at the bar who is shouting that women have no sexuality since they ignore his advances. It's really quite embarrassing George.

There is nothing at all silly about Dr. Richardson's challenge. If polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures in a field setting, there is no reason they should not be able to do so in a laboratory setting. As things now stand, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect countermeasures in either setting.

[palerider]

Of course there is a differance between laboratory and field research!!!!!! Are you mad???


Success! I no longer want to argue with you. Your begging the question is getting exhausting and your general argument is so repetitive---I've run out of motivation. I suppose that if the MMPI(?) had shown you to be obsessive compulsive with axisII elevation (or whatever) --thus losing out on a job-----than perhaps you would have a website devoted to the inherant imperfection and gross acceptance of that particular psychometric tool. And one of your points would be that you challenge the psychometric-administering community to detect countermeasures----which of course would be a meaningless challenge. If anything, the activism (against the test/nemisis) would appear to be an expansive version of the patriarch- destruction in psychanalysis. Polygraph was the less than perfect Daddy, who was bigger and better than yourself, but who eventually let you down. AIDS in Africa, Global Warming, Cancer Research-------but no, you chose anti-polygraph. I met a man who picketed a vending machine for shortchanging him. He could have been enjoying the comfort of hearth and family, but something in him cracked. Some people can't take a little incidental screwing.
Although in the big picture , there are no coincidences (IMO).

[Lord_Darkclaw]

I haven't posted on here for a while, but I thought I'd ask the same question as I have before but in a slightly different way..


A person goes to a polygraph test not believing that it really works and says so to the examiner - the polygraph examiner smiles and shakes his head and gives a demonstration:

He hooks the guy up and asks a couple of simple questions; the guy tries to lie for each question and is horrified to see that each time he tells a lie, the needle swings wildly.  


So, is this not proof that the test works?

Or would the needle swing like that whether he lied or not?

Or could could it be that the needle never responds like that at all?

This last possibility strikes me as unlikely since it must be extremely simple to put to the test. But perhaps I'm wrong; is the scenario I have described simply a myth?