Last week, another video appeared on the website of the National Association of Polygraphologists of Ukraine (NAPU), a phantom organization that does not have a single group photo of its own and is trying to prove its existence by displaying a photo from a conference of members of the All-Ukrainian Association of Polygraph Examiners (VAP or UAPE). I, Tetyana Morozova, remained the main character. But this time, the main characters were the “intellectual and pedagogical power” of NAPU: the head of the training center, Yevgen Puchkov, and the polygraph instructor, deputy head of NAPU, Dmytro Popov.
Let us remind you that the polygraph courses of the NAPU and “Vedmid, Ishchuk and Partners” are the only ones where students are still taught to work with the banned Russian software “Sheriff” (LINK).
The first thing that caught my eye when watching the video was that the conversation between the teachers of the NAPU polygraph courses took place against the backdrop of a wall in the colors of an inverted Ukrainian flag…
The result of the “professional discussion” was a conclusion that was impressive in its thoroughness and depth: “Tatyana Morozova’s method of detecting hidden information is an adaptation of the peak voltage search method.”
One could sincerely rejoice at Mr. Dmitry Popov’s personal intellectual victory, in particular for the fact that, six years after completing polygraph courses and the publication of the textbook “Polygraphology” in the same year that he completed the courses (Morozova T.R., 2019, 476 p.), and the monograph “Methodology for Detecting Hidden Information” (MDHI or MVPI) (Morozova T.R., 2023, 472 p.), he finally realized that the MDHI (MVPI) is an adaptation. In the end, everyone has their own pace of processing and perceiving information, and even though it took a long time, he understood it, and that’s good.
However, there is another version of this “methodological search and discovery”: Mr. Dmitry Popov’s frantic work on 30 pieces of silver from “Vedmid, Ishuk and Partners,” which he is trying to present to the community as an epiphany.
By the way, I will be asked a logical question: why am I writing that Mr. Dmitry Popov completed polygraph courses 6 years ago, not 9 years ago, i.e. in 2019, not in 2016, as stated on all NAPU resources? Because he actually took polygraph courses in 2019, and he added those three extra years himself, claiming that during that time he worked as a “polygraph operator” for Volodymyr Vedmid and Ihor Ishuk…
In any case, in accordance with existing academic traditions, I consider it appropriate to respond with facts, based on published scientific works. Moreover, both my textbook and my monograph are available in Ukrainian libraries in accordance with existing requirements, thanks to which all interested parties have the opportunity to verify that the screenshots below were taken from them.
Screenshot No. 1: p. 200 of the textbook by Morozova T.R. “Polygraphology”:
In principle, this screenshot from the textbook could conclude the discussion of the “methodological debate of the NAPU”: the MDHI (MVPI) is clearly and unambiguously indicated in the textbook “Polygraphology” as adapted, not original; the beginning of the use of MDHI (MVPI) in Ukraine dates back to 1998, i.e., five years before Tetyana Morozova became a polygraph examiner.
They lied again, they #NAPUed again, no one is surprised anymore, etc.
However, the level of incompetence of these two “methodologists” who undertake to train future Ukrainian polygraph examiners is so profound that it would be wrong to limit ourselves to stating the fact of their latest obvious lie. Therefore, we will continue and note the following:
1) Methodology is a set of interrelated methods and techniques for the effective performance of any work.
Mr. Yevgen Puchkov, first, tests are not a methodology; tests are part of a methodology. Second, methodology is not just tests!
There is no such thing as a “methodology for finding the peak voltage”; there is a Peak of Tension (POT) and a Searching Peak of Tension Test (SPOT). POT and SPOT are similar in concept to tests for knowledge of known and unknown solutions of the MDHI (MVPI), but they are not identical to them. It is unacceptable to arbitrarily change POT and SPOT while retaining the names of these tests, as this is not customary in the scientific world. It is impossible to use unadapted POT and SPOT in MDHI (MVPI) due to violations of its methodological requirements (which ones exactly—study and analyze them yourself, I will not give any hints).
2) What can be unreservedly agreed with are the following words of Dmitry Popov (I quote): “It can be said that I really teach a method of detecting hidden information, which is widespread in Ukraine.”
The phrase “it can be said” is used very correctly, because judging by what Dmitry Popov says further, it becomes obvious that he teaches something of his own at the NAPU courses, not the MDHI (MVPI), and nothing has been published anywhere. At least, we have not been able to find any scientific work on polygraphology by Dmitry Popov in the available sources.
3) Mr. Yevgen Puchkov, in the academic environment, which you initially claimed to be a part of as the head of the training center, and now also as a methodologist, it is not customary to refer to well-known scientists and practitioners in a familiar manner, using only their surnames, as you do: “Larson,” “Killer.”
And, by the way, Leonard Keeler’s surname is spelled with one “l,” not two…
4) In response to Dmitry Popov’s words: “And in general, I understood the following: the methodology for detecting hidden information is, once again, practical, a very good methodology, but it is not one that originated in Ukraine,” I will respond with screenshots from the textbook that he has had for six years, since 2019:
Screenshot No. 2: p. 233 of Morozova T.R.’s textbook “Polygraphology” regarding one of the three MDHI (MVPI) tests – the test for knowledge of an unknown decision:
The textbook also mentions the contribution of the famous criminologist Cesare Lombroso to the development of the unknown decision test; the role this test played in exposing Soviet spy Rudolf Abel (William Fisher); how it was used by American military polygraph examiners when testing Vietnamese prisoners.
Screenshot No. 3: p. 241 of the textbook by Morozova T.R. “Polygraphology” regarding the test for knowledge of a known decision:
Screenshot No. 4: p. 242 of Morozova T.R.’s textbook “Polygraphology” regarding Leonard Keeler’s peak tension test:
Screenshot No. 4: p. 242 of T.R. Morozova’s textbook “Polygraphology” regarding Leonard Keeler’s peak tension test:
Screenshot No. 6: p. 244 of Morozova T.R.’s textbook “Polygraphology” on the contribution to the development of the test on knowledge of the well-known solution of the Krasnodar school:
Screenshots No. 7-8: pp. 244-245 of Morozova T.R.’s textbook “Polygraphology” regarding the third and final MDHI (MVPI) test – the version verification test:
5) Dmitry Popov’s words: “Moreover, Tatyana Morozova, in my opinion, has nothing to do with this methodology before it was developed.”
Mr. Dmitry Popov, I will say more—in none of my scientific works, in none of my speeches, in none of my lectures and classes, did I write or say that I created or invented the MDHI (MVPI).
You first invented and attributed the authorship of the methodology to me, then rushed to frantically debunk what you yourself had invented, and now you are publicly sharing your “personal insight” with others.
This is starting to resemble a fight between Nanai boys. There is a variety show act where an artist wears a special costume with two toy heads and crossed arms attached to it. He wears Nanai boots on his feet and hands. As he moves, the artist creates the illusion for the audience that a fierce fight is taking place.
Well, it is not fitting for a military academy graduate to be a clown: be confident in your righteous insight and finally punish that second personality of yours, which insidiously misled you and told you that Tatyana Morozova claimed somewhere that she created the MDHI (MVPI). You can even openly slap that second personality in the face in front of the mirror.
6) Dmitry Popov’s words: “She didn’t teach us this in class. Although it is partially mentioned in the monograph. This technique originated in the 1930s in the United States with a specialist with the interesting surname Killer, who discovered and developed a test for finding the peak of tension and the unknown solution, which he called research of this type, and the known solution. And they strangely coincide in structure with the method of detecting hidden information. But that was almost a century ago. It is impossible to hide this. Why? Because it is in any source.”
If Mr. Dmitry Popov somehow managed not to hear something at the lecture, if he did not remember or did not take notes during the lecture, he has had the textbook “Polygraphology” (2019) for six years, in which Leonard Keeler is mentioned 17 times, John Larson 11 times, and David Lick 5 times (I checked using a search engine).
So, I will repeat for Dmitry Popov: Leonard Keeler is spelled with one “l.”
As for the monograph “Methods for Detecting Hidden Information” (2023), Leonard Keeler is mentioned 3 times, John Larson 2 times, and David Licken 4 times.
Thus, Dmitry Popov simply slandered the person he studied under: this is not an emotional reaction, but an obvious fact that anyone can verify thanks to the screenshots provided above.
7) Mr. Dmitry Popov, no one adapted the MDHI (MVPI) to Soviet conditions, if only because this methodology was brought from Poland just before the collapse of the USSR. It is shameful not to know the history of the methodology you have undertaken to teach.
8) Dmitry Popov’s words: “The only thing that surprises me is that she shies away from the fact that she studied in Russia. Well, if I studied in the Soviet Union, I am proud of it. I am not proud of the Soviet Union itself, but I am proud of the level of education. If Tetyana Morozova was so well educated in Russia, which was friendly to Ukraine at the time, why not? But this is not mentioned. Or for some reason it is presented in an abstract way.”
I am not at all interested in what Mr. Dmytro Popov is proud of. I personally studied in the temporarily occupied territories, according to the text of the Ukrainian anthem, in which our territory is defined from the San to the Don, on the street indicated below:
Whatever Dmitry Popov was trying to achieve with his words, they were based on blatant lies. First, I always talk about where I studied in my classes. Second, I have repeatedly talked about this in various interviews, one of which, “Polygraphs are discredited when they are used as a moral cudgel,” was with Yuriy Butusov and was published in Censor.net in 2016:
9) Dmitry Popov’s words: “By the way, I had a heated debate with my teacher about the methodology for revealing hidden information.”
This reminded me of an episode from the film “Heart of a Dog,” when Professor Preobrazhensky asks Sharikov who he disagrees with after reading the literature: Engels or Kautsky? To which Sharikov proudly replies, like a true methodologist: “Both!”
Firstly, if, according to Dmitry Popov, his teacher is me, then he did not have any methodological discussions with me. The fact is that I do not engage in theoretical discussions based on hypothetical situations. The truth is concrete and confirmed by facts. If you want to discuss something, please show me the plot, polygraphs, and tests. Outside of the polygraph courses in 2019, I have never seen a single test questionnaire from Dmitry Popov. Incidentally, he also never took any advanced training courses with me. How he worked without them is unknown and incomprehensible to me, but I know for sure that saving money on advanced training courses always backfires…
Secondly, I do not consider Dmitry Popov to be my student. He did study with me, but he did not become my student, because a student is not just someone who sat in class, but someone who is close to the teacher in terms of values and morals.
10) Dmitry Popov’s words: “And there is such a test, Tatyana Morozova says that she invented it, it is a version verification test” – this is an outright lie, which can be verified by the above screenshot No. 7 from the textbook.
Continuing Dmitry Popov’s words: “In fact, this is a test of knowledge of an unknown solution, because its structure is exactly the same. That is, the first question is neutral, and all the rest are meaningful. But the last question is the respondent’s version.” Again, a blatant lie.
Screenshot No. 9: p. 244 of Morozova T.R.’s textbook “Polygraphology” regarding the content of the version verification test:
11) Dmitry Popov’s words “the respondent’s version implies a ‘yes’ answer.” We have studied psychophysiology and learned that cognitive dissonance is the subconscious disagreement with what the respondent says, and based on this, physiological indicators appear that are recorded by a polygraph, and we can determine whether he is lying or not. With cognitive dissonance, the answer ‘yes’ does not work very well.”
Here I would like to respond with the words of Professor Preobrazhensky from “A Dog’s Heart”: “Lord, where do you all come from?!” Because advising Dmitry Popov to reread section 2.2 “The nature of physiological responses to MDHI (MVPI) test stimuli” and review the polygraphs presented there (pages 96-119 of the monograph “Methodology of detecting hidden information”) is obviously pointless.
However, regarding the answer “yes,” he can discuss it with his teacher and supervisor Vladimir Vedmid, who really likes this answer. It is unclear, however, in which format and using which methodology the test was conducted, but he likes it.
Here is a recent example of a question and Vladimir Vedmid’s conclusion from a test for a television show: “Would you be willing to have sex for a new car? For a Maserati?” The girl answers “yes.” Vladimir Vedmid concludes: “The answer is ‘yes,’ and it’s true!”
In general, considering the above, this whole story with Dmitry Popov teaching at the National Academy of Public Administration courses is very reminiscent of an old Odessa joke about Enrico Caruso: two old Odessa residents are sitting on a bench and talking about high art. One says, “Your Caruso is a complete nobody, he sings out of tune and has a lisp!” The other asks, “What, have you heard Caruso himself?!” “No, but Rabinovich sang to me!”
