Liar Exposed: Christine Blasey-Ford in Polygraph Perjury Trap
CIA operative and alleged sex assault victim, Professor Christine Blasey-Ford walked right into the perjury trap set for her by prosecutor Rachel Mitchell on Capitol Hill.
Ford lied to the US Senate last Thursday to hide her expertise in how to beat a lie detector test. She now likely faces prosecution and up to five years in federal prison.Ford’s defenders have made much of how she recently passed a polygraph test and that it is “proof” of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged attack on her in the Summer of 1982 when both were teens.
Below we summarize Ford’s legal predicament and how the science of polygraph testing isn’t really science at all.
Firstly, National Review (Oct 2, 2018) gives a revealing new backdrop in ‘Ford’s Ex-Boyfriend Contradicts Her on Polygraph’ reports:
“The ex-boyfriend of one of the women accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has suggested to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she may have perjured herself on several issues during her testimony.”
The former boyfriend is identified as Brian Merrick. He is said to have provided the FBI with a “sworn statement.” The two dated for eight years in the 1990s. On September 26th, the day before Blasey-Ford’s testimony in Washington DC, the Malibu Times wrote about Ford’s relationship with Merrick.
It is believed Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell knew of the article and put to Ford specific questions inviting her to walk into a perjury trap. Stanford University’s errant whining harpy duly obliged.
Blasey-Ford testified under oath that she has ‘never’ given tips to someone on how to take a polygraph:
Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell: “Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?”
Christine Blasey Ford: “Never.”
In September Merrick had written to the Judiciary Committee about the relationship stating:
– Ford never mentioned sexual assault
– Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh
– Ford not scared of confined spaces
– Ford not scared of flying
– Ford knew how to beat polygraph
– Ford cheated on him/committed fraud
The efficacy of polygraphs is debated in the scientific community. In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience. [1]
An Expert in Memory “Hijack” & Mind Control
In our previous article we revealed that Professor Blasey-Ford’s scientific research at Stanford University includes running a “CIA undergraduate internship program” which is described in full at this Stanford.edu recruitment page.
Also, it is alleged other Ford family members have ties with the CIA. President Donald Trump has accused the CIA of long being part of the ‘Deep State.’
We also were able to confirm that Christine Blasey Ford was a co-author of the 2008 mind control study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology. The study title, abstract and authors can be confirmed at this link.
This study openly discusses altering behavior and beliefs through the application of neurotechnology “inference-control loops” that “hijack” human anatomy to control minds. The technique is eerily similar to the notorious CIA MKUltra project.
It is also alleged Blasey-Ford has affiliation with one of the developers of the MKUltra program at Stanford, Dr Frederick Melges, along with her being a student recruiter for CIA programs at the University.
Natural News detail further aspects of the science.
Scientifically, a polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else. [2]
Dr Ford would know that any polygraph is inherently subjective. [3]
The dramatic twist happened Tuesday in a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley’s letter to Ford’s attorneys is demanding they surrender Ford’s therapy notes “immediately.”
Sadly, it is a common misconception that polygraphs (lie detector tests) are reliable methods to determine someone’s truthfulness-they simply aren’t. Just search online for ‘how to beat a polygraph test?’ and see.
What is a Polygraph Test?
A polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector (test), is a device or procedure that 
measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.[1] The belief underpinning the use of the polygraph is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers.
How to Beat a Polygraph Test
In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations “untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection”.
The examiner usually begins polygraph test sessions with a pre-test interview to gain some preliminary information which will later be used to develop diagnostic questions. Then a “stim test” is often conducted: the subject is asked to deliberately lie and then the tester reports that he was able to detect this lie. Guilty subjects are likely to become more anxious when they are reminded of the test’s validity. But Ford would know how to manipulate her own emotional responses to fool the test.
Kevin Ship, Former CIA Counterintelligence expert, wrote on Twitter: 
“Ford is not just a liar, she is a puppet. As a former CIA polygraph examiner with a masters level (DOD/CIA) degree in forensic psychophysiology, I can tell you with certainty she has been coached to lie. Also, note her breathing during the questions.”
Watch Kevin Shipp’s interviews on The Hagmann Report. Interview #1Interview #2
It is at this point where prior knowledge into how to cover a lie comes into play. Professor David W. Martin, PhD, from North Carolina State University, tells us that the polygraph simply is trying measure human emotions, but there is simply no royal road to (measuring) human emotions.
An article from the site ImpiousDigest states that Christine’s father, Ralph G Blasey Jr. had worked for the CIA and was a vice president, at one time, for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” allegedly known for funding CIA deep state operations.
If Blasey was an MKUltra victim, and many children of CIA assets are (Ralph Blasey running low light camera surveillance companies and being high level CIA), chances are she was raped and severely traumatized, many times. That’s how the MKUltra system works to fragment the personality (Dissociative Identity Disorder-DID) of the child and gain total control of the individual.
The growing credibility of the ‘QAnon’ phenomenon means we can fairly include mention of this latest ‘Q post’ on the matter on qmap.pub
‘Q’ also points to another curious rabbit hole readers may want to dive down: ‘Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct’ and link.
[1] Iacono, W.G. “Forensic ‘lie detection’: Procedures without scientific basis”, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, Vol. 1 (2001), No. 1, pp. 75–86
[2] “Lie Detector Roulette”. Mother Jones.
[3] To, Katherine. “Lie Detection: The Science and Development of the Polygraph”, Illumin, Volume V Issue 1, University of Southern California, December 6, 2002. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph A Olson
| #
Swamp critters and swamp draining are off topic for PSI
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Joe, This is not off topic – the story arose from a scientific paper in the Journal of Clinical Psychology co-written by a psychology professor that proves that someone with in-depth knowledge of clinical techniques in mind control can skillfully subvert polygraphs. The validity of polygraphs has been debated since the 1990s and discussion is ongoing in the scientific community. This story informs that debate and also highlights the perennial bugbear of fraud infecting science – a key focus of PSI’s stated mission.
Reply
Dr Ed Huff
| #
Sorry, John, but the facts don’t support what you’re saying on several counts. First, she appeared way down in the list of eleven authors, and according to her bio was probably responsible for the statistical analysis that showed: “… Eight hypnosis group participants … experienced a remission [IN DEPRESSION !], but the difference from controls was not statistically significant.” The study itself had nothing to do with hypnosis or other techniques to defeat polygraph tests. Incidentally, polygraphs have been the subject of debate among behavioral scientists (like me) well before the 1990s. As this [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph]article[/url] shows it was invented in 1921 and is currently being used (rightly or wrongly) by US law enforcement and federal agencies — including the FBI.
I’ve attached the abstract for the 2008 paper you’re talking about, although I’ve not been able to download the full article.
Title:
Meditation with yoga, group therapy with hypnosis, and psychoeducation for long‐term depressed mood: a randomized pilot trial
Lisa D. Butler Lynn C. Waelde T. Andrew Hastings Xin‐Hua Chen Barbara Symons Jonathan Marshall Adam Kaufman Thomas F. Nagy Christine M. Blasey Elizabeth O. Seibert David Spiegel … See fewer authors
First published: 05 May 2008 https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20496
Abstract:
This randomized pilot study investigated the effects of meditation with yoga (and psychoeducation) versus group therapy with hypnosis (and psychoeducation) versus psychoeducation alone on diagnostic status and symptom levels among 46 individuals with long‐term depressive disorders. Results indicate that significantly more meditation group participants experienced a remission than did controls at 9‐month follow‐up. Eight hypnosis group participants also experienced a remission, but the difference from controls was not statistically significant. Three control participants, but no meditation or hypnosis participants, developed a new depressive episode during the study, though this difference did not reach statistical significance in any case. Although all groups reported some reduction in symptom levels, they did not differ significantly in that outcome. Overall, these results suggest that these two interventions show promise for treating low‐ to moderate‐level depression. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 64(7): 1–15, 2008.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
I disagree. Dr Ford has undoubted family connections to the CIA; she runs the undergraduate CIA course at Stanford and her scientific background in mind control application and duplicity with polygraphs for intelligence purposes is being exposed. Further developments in the FBI investigation are likely to prove the issue one way or the other soon enough.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ed,
Did any of these therapies produce false memories? I guess one would need to read the entire 15 page article to learn such a detail if it exists. When you criticize anyone on the basis of a 9 line abstract you are not being a good scientist. There must be some other important information in these 15 pages; otherwise why not just write the abstract?
I do not need to be a behavior scientist to suspect that if asked about this false memory during a polygraph test, the person having this false memory will answer truthfully about this false memory. After all, once this memory has been established, how does the person know that it isn’t truthful as they now remember their past?
Take the case of an eye witness. They are known to be unreliable but if given a polygraph test, I suspect, but do not know, that when this witness agrees the car was blue when it was in fact red, the witness would not be found to have lied because the witness believes the car was blue.
A fact is the selection of a Supreme Court Judge was not intended to be political. The Supreme Court is only to judge if legislative laws are constitutional or if the actions of the executive branch of government are constitutional. They are to judge on the facts of the case and the Constitution as written. So issues surrounding the selection of Supreme Court Judge should not be made political by the Senators who are obvious political. If they become political this is not John’s problem. And the issue of behavior science is science.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bob
| #
Jerry
“A fact is the selection of a Supreme Court Judge was not intended to be political. The Supreme Court is only to judge if legislative laws are constitutional or if the actions of the executive branch of government are constitutional.”
Its absolutely a political process putting a justice on the supreme court. Thats why a president from one party nominates and must get approval from the senators representing 50 different states and different parties.
Lets be honest about everything. Its not kavanaugh the D’s truely distaste. The D’s hatred is the US Constitution and the majority of the American people they cannot fool or buy off!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Bob, ,
“Oath of Office. Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will “support and defend the Constitution.”(https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Oath_vrd.htm)
If what you claim is true, such partisan senators are liars. My statement was to support John O’Sullivan’s position that he did not violate one of PSI’s provisions to not be political. Because some USA Senators appear to be liars he is not allowed to comment upon the science involved and the rule of law involved?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bob
| #
Simoly basedon the fact that the residing president picks makes it political. A democrat is nit going to pick a nominee that follows the US Constitutuon. And the several D chosen sitting in the court now toss the constitution in the trash abd legisalate from the court. The sane way a R is not going to pick a liberal judge. Selecting and confirming is a political abd partisan act as disgustingly displayed b4 us now thanks to The gutter politics if the left.
Too bad Blasey ford wasn’t better actress. In my k-12 i had pehaps 100 teachers. In my BBA i had 40 professors. Never had i heard a person of this “distinction” and “intellect” speak as ford did with the glottal fry. Pathetic!!!
Reply
tom0mason
| #
He’s more about the polygraph test Ford took and what he said, she said about how to ‘pass’ a polygraph test. https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1538575732
And more about the lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf . (a 1MB pdf book about the pseudoscience of lie detection).
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Tom, excellent links – many thanks – this helps a more informed discussion on the matter.
Reply
Bob
| #
Tom0mason
I really hope this time the senate goes full force after her. Clearly she lied. Was trained. Coached. Whole thing was a sham. She should be forced to reimburse senate, fbi, etc, etc. i’d be embarassed to be her husband or kid. I’d be embarrassed to attend a class she was teaching. Id be embarassed to employ her.
Reply
Jim Chambers
| #
TomOmason,
History indicates that her lies will go unchallenged and unpunished (Hillary and emails, Comey, Brennan to Congress on spying on Americans). Her conduct makes her only employable by the federal government and academia.
Reply
JaimeInTexas
| #
The Senate’s “advice and consent” at one time may have been less political but that was when Senators were appointed by their respective State Legislatures.
Reply
Roderick Mills
| #
The material point is that she is not some little 53 old Victorian hot house flower who was Almost-But-Not-Really-Raped by Brett “The Wad” Kavanaugh just after she had gotten out of diapers. She is a liar no matter how you weigh the “evidence” and there was nothing credible about her testimony. The extent of her connection to the CIA and the FBI is unimportant. She has connections and that is all we need to know about her when we consider how she delivered that phony testimony in her widdle girl voice as if she was suffering from the time her parents made her sleep alone while there were monsters in the closet. There were no monsters in the closet and Brett Kavanaugh was not one of them because there were NO monsters in the closet.
Reply