Pseudoscientist “Dr.” Charles Humble Attempts to Censor AntiPolygraph.org

Charles Wayne Humble in “Heartbeat of America” promotional video

AntiPolygraph.org has received a rather unpleasant letter from James D’Loughy, a lawyer representing NITV Federal Services, LLC (NITV), which markets a scientifically baseless voice-based lie detector called the “Computer Voice Stress Analyzer,” and its president, self-described “Renaissance Man” “Dr.” Charles Humble (who has not received a doctoral degree from any accredited institute of higher education).

In his letter, D’Loughy, of the law firm Advisorlaw, which specializes in helping clients protect their assets from creditors, demands that AntiPolygraph.org remove twelve URLs that comprise a substantial portion of the website.

NITV’s offices at 11400 Fortune Circle, West Palm Beach, Florida (Google Street View)

AntiPolygraph.org is a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with polygraphs and other pseudoscientific “lie detectors,” including voice stress analyzers.

D’Loughy avers that a default judgment in a lawsuit NITV filed against its competitor, Dektor PSE, and which, among other things, compelled Dektor to remove a website with content critical of NITV, also compels AntiPolygraph.org—which was not a party to this litigation and which has no privity with Dektor—to remove the twelve links.

NITV’s contention that its judgment against Dektor binds AntiPolygraph.org is absurd. Through our counsel, noted attorney (and former Westchester County, New York police commissioner) George N. Longworth of the law firm Grant & Longworth, we have declined NITV’s demand to remove the twelve links.

While NITV’s demand is without merit, it does serve to highlight the content on AntiPolygraph.org that most upsets NITV and “Dr.” Charles Humble, so it’s worth examining these links here:

  1. A recent blog post titled Federal Judge Orders Immediate Removal of Website Critical of Computer Voice Stress Analysis;
  2. A blog post from 2018 titled NITV Hires Disgraced Ex-Cop Jerry W. Crotty II as Director of Law Enforcement Operations;
  3. A message board thread titled Jury Returns $575,000 Award Against NITV for Defamation;
  4. Every post on the AntiPolygraph.org News blog tagged “CVSA”;
  5. The entire AntiPolygraph.org News blog (yes, really);
  6. A blog post about a presentation on polygraph pre-test interviews (we are uncertain why this is of concern to NITV and Humble, who are not mentioned in the post);
  7. All blog posts in the category “voice stress” (the demand at #5 that we delete the entire blog should have covered this);
  8. A message board thread dating to 2011 titled Canadian police and press believe in CVSA;
  9. A blog post from 2009 titled Baker DVSA Loses a Customer;
  10. The RSS feed for our message board forum on “CVSA and other Voice Stress Analysis Applications;”
  11. Search results for “cvsa” on our blog;
  12. A recent blog post titled NITV Threatens Competitor’s IT Consultant with Federal Lawsuit

For background on NITV and Charles Humble, see ABC Primetime’s 2006 investigative report on the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer:

4 thoughts on “Pseudoscientist “Dr.” Charles Humble Attempts to Censor AntiPolygraph.org”

  1. Anything to contribute to the prison industrial complex will be dangerous to the population, follow the money and you shall see who is behind this unproven nonsense.

  2. If any of these products worked, it would be easy to tell. First, they would require almost no training. They would absolutely, without question, require ZERO interpretation on the part of the person operating the system. It would be entirely automated. Second, if you said “This statement is a lie.” to the machine, it would explode.

    1. @Dustin Rodriguez I think you’re a little bit off on both of your points.

      At the minimum, a working deception detector might produce a confidence level associated with deception. It may also produce multidimensional results, along the lines of “82% for fabrication, 38% for omission.” These kinds of results would require interpretation.

      Second, the goal is not to produce a contradiction detector, it’s to produce a deception detector. There’s a *huge* difference. You don’t have to solve both the halting problem and disprove Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to detect that somebody is lying. (Also, although it’s a classical paradox, “this statement is a lie” is not really a paradox, because “lie” is not the same as “false.” Lying is not a logical or mathematical construct, it’s a human construct.)

  3. Both the polygraph and the VSA are nothing more than stress detectors. Neither of which are “Lie Detectors.” They detect and display the level of stress someone is experiencing at the time it is collected. Experience and observation have shown that when someone tells a lie, and the lie is connected to some form of jeopardy, that person experiences emotional stress. The big question is, what caused the stress? Was it the telling of a lie (connected to the consequence of jeopardy), or something else, i.e. situational stress caused by the way the examination was conducted? In my opinion, only a well trained and experienced examiner would be able to tell the difference. I have been using VSA since 2003, and it has proven itself invaluable at ferreting out the truth. In the infamous words of Julius Caesar, “People readily believe what they want to believe.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.