



Faux Ph.D. Michael Martin Speaking With Adam Savage



The secondary topic of the latest episode of Discovery Channel's popular Mythbusters program (



In the episode, Mythbusters inexplicably fails to explain the truth about how a polygraph "test" actually works and (knowingly as I shall explain) presents a phony Ph.D. as an authority on matters of polygraph validity.



Here's how polygraph "testing" actually works: The examinee is not supposed to know that secretly, the examiner expects answers to the so-called "probable-lie control questions" to be less than truthful. An example of a commonly-used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The examinee is steered into a denial through the suggestion, for example, that anyone who would lie to get out of trouble is the same kind of person who would commit the crime under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is expected that everyone has lied to get out of trouble -- even those innocent of the crime.



Reactions to the control questions are then compared to reactions to the relevant questions (those directly concerning the incident under investigation), for example, "Did you take that money from that office?" If reactions to the control questions are greater, the examinee passes. If reactions to the relevant questions are greater, the examinee fails.



This simplistic methodology has no grounding in the scientific method and is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly and fully one answers the control questions, and as a result feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.



The procedure also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely expains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth" because the true answer is obvious to both examiner and examinee. But in fact, these irrelevant questions are not scored at all, but merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and control questions.



Mythbusters explained none of this critically important information to the audience, although they could have easily done so in a minute or two.



Again, the key to passing or beating a polygraph test is to exhibit stronger reactions to the control questions than to the relevant questions. Methods for doing this include the techniques of tongue-biting and mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts) that were shown on the episode. But these must be done timely with the asking of the control questions.



Instead, the Mythbusters personnel were told to apply countermeasures "when telling the truth." It appears that they wrongly applied their countermeasures when answering the unscored irrelevant questions. It is hardly surprising that such misapplied countermeasures did not result in passing scores.



The polygraph operator who appeared on the show is none other than the infamous "Dr." Michael Martin, whom AntiPolygraph.org has previously Mythbusters staff:



http://dsc.discovery.com



The Discovery Channel's message board has a thread about this episode titled,



I can reveal that in August of this year, I was contacted by two of Mythbusters' producers. They had seen my



One of the topics I was asked about in the course of our phone conversation was a polygraph examiner who might be suitable to appear on the show. They were initially interested in Bruce Burgess, who appeared in the same British show as I previously had. In a follow-up e-mail sent on 31 August 2007, I specifically warned them, in the event they chose to seek a polygraph examiner closer to home, against three prominent polygraph operators whom AntiPolygraph.org has identified as phony Ph.D.s:



Mythbusters cannot say they were not warned about Michael Martin's credentials. I think they owe the public an explanation of why they knowingly chose a fraud to appear on the show and allowed him to be presented as "Dr." Martin. The secondary topic of the latest episode of Discovery Channel's popularprogram ( Season 5, Episode 24 "Confederate Steam Gun" ), which aired on Wednesday, 5 December 2007, is the supposed "myth" that it is possible to beat a polygraph test. (It is, despite the show's conclusion that it is merely "plausible." For documentation, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector [1 mb PDF].) The episode will re-air this Saturday, 8 December. I encourage all to watch.In the episode,inexplicably fails to explain the truth about how a polygraph "test" actually works and (knowingly as I shall explain) presents a phony Ph.D. as an authority on matters of polygraph validity.Here's how polygraph "testing" actually works: The examinee is not supposed to know that secretly, the examiner expects answers to the so-called "probable-lie control questions" to be less than truthful. An example of a commonly-used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The examinee is steered into a denial through the suggestion, for example, that anyone who would lie to get out of trouble is the same kind of person who would commit the crime under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is expected thathas lied to get out of trouble -- even those innocent of the crime.Reactions to the control questions are then compared to reactions to the relevant questions (those directly concerning the incident under investigation), for example, "Did you take that money from that office?" If reactions to the control questions are greater, the examinee passes. If reactions to the relevant questions are greater, the examinee fails.This simplistic methodology has no grounding in the scientific method and is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly and fully one answers the control questions, and as a result feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.The procedure also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely expains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth" because the true answer is obvious to both examiner and examinee. But in fact, these irrelevant questions are not scored at all, but merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and control questions.explained none of this critically important information to the audience, although they could have easily done so in a minute or two.Again, the key to passing or beating a polygraph test is to exhibit stronger reactions to the control questions than to the relevant questions. Methods for doing this include the techniques of tongue-biting and mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts) that were shown on the episode. But these must be doneInstead, thepersonnel were told to apply countermeasures "when telling the truth." It appears that they wrongly applied their countermeasures when answering the unscored irrelevant questions. It is hardly surprising that such misapplied countermeasures did not result in passing scores.The polygraph operator who appeared on the show is none other than the infamous "Dr." Michael Martin, whom AntiPolygraph.org has previously unmasked as a phony Ph.D. who obtained his "doctoral degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill. He is seen in a video clip currently available on the Discovery Channel website suggesting a 98% accuracy for polygraphy -- a scientifically unfounded claim that goes unquestioned by thestaff:The Discovery Channel's message board has a thread about this episode titled, Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here! . (I have made several posts to this thread. I registered and posted under the name "George Maschke," but somehow, perhaps a database corruption, the user names associated with my posts have changed.)I can reveal that in August of this year, I was contacted by two ofproducers. They had seen my appearance on a 2003 British television program , and after a lengthy and pleasant telephone conversation, they were interested in having me either come to San Francisco to appear on the show or be interviewed via webcam.One of the topics I was asked about in the course of our phone conversation was a polygraph examiner who might be suitable to appear on the show. They were initially interested in Bruce Burgess, who appeared in the same British show as I previously had. In a follow-up e-mail sent on 31 August 2007, I specifically warned them, in the event they chose to seek a polygraph examiner closer to home, against three prominent polygraph operators whom AntiPolygraph.org has identified as phony Ph.D.s: Ed Gelb James Allan Matte , and Michael Martin . And I included the same hyperlinks you see here. The producers did not reply to my e-mail and did not contact me again.cannot say they were not warned about Michael Martin's credentials. I think they owe the public an explanation of why they knowingly chose a fraud to appear on the show and allowed him to be presented as "Dr." Martin.