A Response to Doug Williams

[George W. Maschke]

A Response to Doug Williams
by George W. Maschke
1 August 2003

Douglas Gene Williams, author of "How to Sting the Polygraph," a manual on polygraph countermeasures that is available for sale on his website, www.polygraph.com, has published a veiled attack against AntiPolygraph.org and myself on his Frequently Asked Questions page:

THERE IS EVEN ONE WEBSITE OUT THERE THAT EQUATES BEING "ANTI" WITH BEING AN EXPERT. HE FREELY ADMITS THAT THE ONLY EXPERIENCE HE HAS WITH THE POLYGRAPH IS THAT HE HAS FLUNKED TWO TESTS. BUT THAT DOESN'T STOP HIM FROM GIVING ADVICE ON HOW TO "BEAT" THE POLYGRAPH. HE EVEN HAS A BULLETIN BOARD WHERE YOU CAN GET "ADVICE" FROM ANONYMOUS POSTS  PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN YOU DO - NOW THAT OUGHT TO MAKE YOU FEEL CONFIDENT! HE'S BASICALLY HARMLESS  JUST ANOTHER POOR POLYGRAPH VICTIM TRYING TO BUILD UP HIS WOUNDED EGO - BUT THE POORLY WRITTEN, CONFUSING, AND OUT OF DATE INFORMATION IN HIS "BOOK" IS NOT SO HARMLESS. AS THE SAYING GOES, "A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING". I HAVE READ HIS STUFF AND IN MY EXPERT OPINION, IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO PREPARE YOU TO PASS THE POLYGRAPH TEST. THE ONLY THING OF VALUE IS WHAT HE GOT FROM AN OLD EDITION OF MY MANUAL  AND HE DIDN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT. BUT AT LEAST IT'S FREE  HE IS SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT HIS INFORMATION IS WORTH. (original emphasis)

It is not clear why Mr. Williams chooses not to name the website and person to whom he is referring above, but it is clear that the website to which he refers is AntiPolygraph.org, and that the "he" to whom he refers is myself. Perhaps the reason Mr. Williams chooses not to name the website of which he speaks is that he would prefer that any who have not yet visited AntiPolygraph.org not discover this non-profit website?

Mr. Williams begins his attack with the claim that AntiPolygraph.org "equates being 'anti' with being an expert." This is utter nonsense. Neither I nor anyone else has equated a person's opposition to polygraphy with a person's being an expert.

Mr. Williams is apparently referring to myself when he writes, "He freely admits that the only experience he has with the polygraph is that he has flunked two tests. But that doesn't stop him from giving advice on how to 'beat' the polygraph." Indeed, it was my experience of "flunking" two polygraph examinations -- when I had in fact been truthful -- that first led me to research polygraphy. It seems that Mr. Williams would like visitors to his website to discount what I have to say about polygraph matters because of my negative experience with the polygraph. But the information about polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures that is available on AntiPolygraph.org, and especially in our free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, is based not on any claimed personal experience -- either my own or that of others -- but rather on extensive research of the polygraph literature. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is well-annotated with citations that skeptical readers may check for themselves.

Although I make no specific claim to being an "expert," neither would it be correct to characterize me as entirely uninformed with regard to polygraph matters. (At the risk of appearing immodest, I think it appropriate to note that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph saw fit to invite me to Washington, D.C. to deliver a presentation at the second in their series of public meetings.)

Doug Williams continues: "He even has a bulletin board where you can get 'advice' from anonymous posts  people who don't know any more than you do - now that ought to make you feel confident!" AntiPolygraph.org maintains a message board that has become the Internet's leading forum for uncensored discussion and debate of polygraph matters. Everyone is welcome to participate, including both polygraph opponents and supporters. Even Mr. Williams himself has occasionally posted on the AntiPolygraph.org message board. We allow anonymous posting because it fosters the free exchange of ideas, allowing some persons to participate who might otherwise fear retaliation for candidly expressing their views. We even have a forum dedicated to discussion of The Lie Behind the Lie Detectorwhere everyone is free to post any commentary or criticism they may have. Indeed, we welcome such criticism. Mr. Williams's website, by contrast, provides no such discussion forum.

Mr. Williams characterizes me as "basically harmless  just another poor polygraph victim trying to build up his wounded ego." I am certainly not attempting to cause harm to anyone. But Williams' unsupported allegation that I am just "trying to build up [my] wounded ego" is simply not true. Gino Scalabrini and I created AntiPolygraph.org in order to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. The website exists to educate the public, and especially those who may someday face a polygraph examination. We don't want others to suffer the same harm that we have because of our government's misplaced faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy. I am particularly troubled by Mr. Williams' characterization of me as "just another poor polygraph victim." Does he genuinely care about the plight of polygraph victims?

Speaking of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, Williams continues "but the poorly written, confusing, and out of date information in his 'book' is not so harmless." It is not clear why Mr. Williams puts the word "book" in quotation marks. Perhaps he is somehow convinced that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not really a book?
Mr. Williams does not tell us just what it is in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that he considers to be "poorly written, confusing, and out of date," so it is difficult to respond to this criticism. Perhaps Mr. Williams would be so kind as to post any specific criticisms he may have on the AntiPolygraph.org message board? This way, visitors to AntiPolygraph.org would be warned against the harm that Mr. Williams would have them believe may befall them if they read our "book."

Williams contends that in his expert opinion, the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector "is not good enough to prepare you to pass the polygraph test." But he does not explain why he believes this to be the case.

Williams claims that "the only thing of value is what he got from an old edition of my manual  and he didn't even get that right." Not true. The countermeasure information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based on a variety of sources, including Williams' manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph." But it is also based on other sources, including peer-reviewed countermeasure studies by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, Professor David T. Lykken's seminal treatise, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute documentation, and articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly publication, Polygraph. All these sources are appropriately referenced where relied upon in the book and are included in the bibliography.

Williams concludes his diatribe saying, "but at least it's free - he is smart enough to know what his information is worth." Unlike Mr. Williams's website, AntiPolygraph.org is not a profit-seeking enterprise. As Gino Scalabrini and I note in the introduction to The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we have distributed this book in electronic format free of charge in order to reach the broadest audience possible. We didn't write it to make money, and our only request is that if readers find it informative and useful, that they tell others about it.

In summary, I don't think that Mr. Williams has offered any rational argument as to why anyone should disregard any information on AntiPolygraph.org in general or in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector in particular.

[Saidme]

Awesome!  You guys should go into entertainment.  Quite amusing.  The anti guys are infighting.  Hell of a knee slapper.  

George, you seem to bolster your credibility on your invitation from the NAS.  I guess Doug could bolster his credibility with his little interview with Diane Sawyer.  Who trumps who?  Ha Ha Ha.

I like the way you slant your website as the moral upstanding helping the poor victim website as opposed to the capitalist money grabbing website that Williams has.

At least you give poor old Doug credit by telling him you used portions of "The Stank" (or whatever he calls it).

Why would you even respond to Williams with this my site is better than your site bullshit?  Is your ego getting in the way your ability to disseminate information to the criminal throngs?

Your post certainly is interesting.

[Public Servant]

George,

Perhaps Doug was upset about my post (I can't find it now) that questioned his character in regard to the apparent contradictions of his past (thousands of exams run?!) and present polygraph views.  

[amused]

George, you certainly proved Doug's point about your wounded ego.  It is obvious that you wrote and give your book away free because that is the only way you can get people to visit your site.  They sure wouldn't come just to hear you and the other losers cry about flunking the polygraph tests.
And Saidme is right - you did take his information to put in your book.
And as to your invitation to the NAS, the only thing you have to offer is to cry about being a victim.  You certainly didn't have any expert tesimony to give.  You really are a bitter, pathetic little man and you continue to prove it.

[Mark Mallah]

George,

You're being very diplomatic when you state at certain points that it's "not clear" why Doug Williams would write pejoratively about antipolygraph.org or about you.

Of course, it's perfectly clear: he's trying to sell something you are giving away for free.  He's trying to stop the hemorraghing.  He wants to undermine you without giving you any publicity.  He's not interested in reasoned debate, he's interested in sales figures.

Keep up the great work!!

[BS Detector]

This should be called antianythingoranyonebutgeorge.comejointhepityparty.org  

[Human Subject]

Whenever I try to persuade someone that polygraphy is a farce, I invite them to peruse the postings on this board, and to contrast the relative intelligence displayed by the pro- and anti-polygraph posters.

This has worked every time so far.  And this thread is already shaping up to be a effective tool in this regard, as well.

So please, pro-polygraph folks, resume your witty remarks!

As for Williams' criticism that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is poorly-written, I'd like to see evidence to support this claim.  The chapters I read were free from any errors that I could see.

[G Scalabr]

Whenever I try to persuade someone that polygraphy is a farce, I invite them to peruse the postings on this board, and to contrast the relative intelligence displayed by the pro- and anti-polygraph posters.

We hear this all the time. The facts vs. inflammatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks debate on this message board has caused many impartial observers to conclude that polygraphy is a farce. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that we have yet to be accused to employing shills to misrepresent the pro-polygraph position. Sometimes, I look at certain posts made by polygraphers and come to the conclusion that even if we had shills, we couldn't the pro-polygraph side look at bad as some of them do.

As for Williams' criticism that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is poorly-written, I'd like to see evidence to support this claim.  The chapters I read were free from any errors that I could see.

Well over 95% of all criticism of AntiPolygraph.org and The Lie Behind the Lie Detector comes in the form of vague negative statements or personal attacks. George and I thrive upon this stuff, as it lets us know that we are being successful.

As far as the angry former 'grapher who appears to be upset that his money train may be derailed (in actuality, what we write here is likely to pique public interest in polygraphy and increase his sales), as George said, this is an open forum. If he wants to "hang with the big dogs," he can post his specific criticisms right here on this site. Otherwise, he can continue to stay on the porch and just bark. The choice is his.

There's nothing like the rhetoric of an angry 'grapher to put an smile on my face at the end of the day.

[Amused]

Wow George and Gino you do go on, and on, and on......Watch out!  You are going to blow your own horn so loudly and so long that you will likely pass out and fall flat on your asses.  What a pair to draw to!!

[G Scalabr]

Amused, once again, it is posts like yours that let us know that we are hitting a nerve in the polygraph community. This type of stuff keeps us going strong. Perhaps you should change your name on this board to "Angered." In any case, your posts on this thread require me to haul out the...

Angry 'Grapher Alert!

[Amused]

No Gino, not angry just amused.  Pukes like you and George don't rate anger, just amusement seasoned with a little disdain.

[Poly-Killer]

No Gino, not angry just amused.  Pukes like you and George don't rate anger, just amusement seasoned with a little disdain.

Amused...now THATS what I call amusing...you state that they (George, Gino, etc.) don't "rate anger", yet you resort to name-calling.

I understand your anger though, I'd be angry too, if there were people out there blowing the whistle on the hoax that the polygraph community has perpetrated on the general public. Particularly in regard to poly-screening.

Take care,
PK

[Saidme]

Gino

You're a class act.  You and George deserve one another.

[BSDetector]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call George and Gino's book a book REPORT as opposed to a real book?   In fact  they themselves say they simply reported what others have written.  And now I hear that George is saying that his part is much better written than Gino's part.  And of course Gino is now upset.    Where will it all end?  

[George W. Maschke]

BSDETECTOR,

You write:

And now I hear that George is saying that his part is much better written than Gino's part. ?And of course Gino is now upset.

Pray tell, where did you hear that?

In another message thread, you made the following false accusation:

George: ?Your statement that is board is "uncensored" is a blatant lie and you know it. ?I know for a fact that you have blocked people that you don't want posting here.

You appear to be more a spreader of BS, than a detector of it.