Indeed, it appears that Professor Horvath will not be publicly responding to my challenge to him to set the record straight, though I don't know what he may have privately communicated to Mr. Bauman.

As of today, Monday, 8 July, I have still not heard from Mr. Bauman <bau@desnews.com> whether he believes that the description of comparison/control questions in his article was true and accurate, and I somehow expect I won't be receiving a reply.

In addition, I sent the following e-mail to Mr. Bauman's news editor, Chuck Gates <chuck@desnews.com>, on 1 July 2002:

Quote:


I expect that I won't be hearing from Chuck Gates, either...

On the face of things, it appears that Professor Horvath deliberately misled Mr. Bauman regarding the nature of control/comparison questions, and that the Deseret News, having been made aware of the truth of the matter, has made a deliberate editorial decision not to expose "the lie behind the lie detector."

Well Sir George, it looks as if Mr. Horvath will not be rising to this occassion to correct the record. Obfuscation yet again, this time with a willing 'journalist'.

Dave

I'm curious how Mr. Williams arrived at such a 'bad place' with regard to his opinions and advice on polygraphy if he is a graduate of such a fine school.

And what bad information is he giving?

Quote:


I don't really care about being accused of "turning" on Williams (if that is what you meant).  He is giving bad information to people and making alot of money doing it.  However, I did say something in my last post that I truly regret.  I made a comment about the Arthur School that was based on information I received from others, but did not know for myself.  I made the statement that they teach polygraph as a "prop" for interrogation.  I have since reviewed their curriculum and have discovered that they indeed provide a detailed polygraph training program that explores many areas in the application of polygraph as science and as an investigative tool.  I stand corrected and am sorry for any insult I may have made towards that school or any of its graduates.

Polycop...

It's so sad when polygraphers turn on one of their own.....

Hey Beechtrees,

You said:

Quote:


Please allow me to do so.  Doug's website says:

"Is a veteran of the US Air Force, and was assigned to the White House Communications Agency where he worked in the Situation Room and served as communications advisor to Presidents Johnson and Nixon, (Presidential Service Badge # 1994). http://www.disa.mil/line/whca.html"

Which means exactly WHAT in the field of polygraph?
 
"Is a graduate of Oklahoma City University with a BS degree in Police Science."

Good for police training, means nothing to the polygraph community execpt maybe as a prerequsite to an accredited polygraph school and to eventual membership in the APA.
 
"Is a graduate of the National Training Center for Lie Detection in New York City."

That is Dick Arthurs' school.  A small private polygraph school that teaches polygraph as little more than an interrogational prop.

"Was the first person licensed by examination under the 1972 Oklahoma Polygraph Licensing Act, and was licensed by the State of Oklahoma from 1972 to 1979."

Probably true, don't really know.
 
"Administered over 3000 polygraph examinations for many law enforcement agencies including the Secret Service and the FBI."

I love this one.  According to Doug, who spent 6 years as a working examiner.  If he REALLY administered 3000 exams, he would have had to administer OVER 2 exams a day, for every work day, over six years.  That does not include holidays, vacations, sick days, training days, other other duties, (to include his supposed "supervisory duties".  All in all, HIGHLY unlikely.  Add to that his original claim of having conducted over 6000 exams, and well, I just suspect he has been taking a bit of a vacation with the truth...

Oh, and for his having run exams for the FBI and Secret Service?  You might want to know these agencies NEVER use civilian police examiners.  period.  Now Doug may have run an exam or two in cases where his PD had a common investigation with the federal government, but these agencies are highly internalized.  They don't even let other federal agencies run their exams....

"Is a ten year veteran of the Oklahoma City Police Department and held the rank of Detective Sergeant."

And he was sooo incensed at polygraph that he quit a glorious police career to take up the anti-polygraph banner.?  Boy, now THATS dedication.  Next thing you know, he will claim to have slept in his car during his crusade...

"Testified as an expert witness before the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress and was very instrumental in getting the Employee Polygraph Protection Act passed into law."

"Very Instrumental?"  By who's words?  Dougs?

"Was a member of the board of the Office of Technology Assessment, an investigative arm of the US Congress impaneled to study the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" 

Oh, I would LOVE to see the letter that appointed him to the OTA board.

Has been a guest lecturer at a number of colleges and universities.  Has been featured on many national television shows including CBS 60 MINUTES, CBS NIGHTWATCH, NBC NIGHTLY NEWSWITH TOM BROKAW, CNN WORLD NEWS, FOX NETWORK’S EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN, NBC DATELINE, FOX NEWS, CNN NEWS STAND, A DOCUMENTARY FOR THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL, and will soon be featured in a documentary produced by THE LEARNING CHANNEL. 
Has been featured in over 150 newspaper and magazine articles, scores of local TV news and talk shows, and over 2,000 radio talk shows."

Although I tend to doubt the numbers here, I do believe he had done all these media things.  Doug LOVES to see himself on TV.  Unfortunately that does NOT make him any kind of an "expert."

Polycop...
   

That tired, wheezy old tactic 'the boys'? (Does he have any idea how foolish he looks attacking Dr. Richardson's credentials?) Apparently not, as he is simply the latest in a long line of 'I don't like his message, so I will attack his credentials' rubes.

Hey Einsteins, Dr. Richardson graduated from your polygraph Mecca. A Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), member of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, a graduate of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's Basic Polygraph Examiner Course, and formerly a practitioner of the CQT in both simulated and field-criminal investigations. 

Funny how they never attack Doug Williams' credentials, only his message of useful countermeasures.

the boys,

Your following statement:

Quote:


reminds me of something yet another American Polygraph Association past president, Don Weinstein, wrote to me in the message thread, LAPD Dropping Requirement to Pass Polygraph? Mr. Weinstein wrote:

Quote:


(Could defender-to-the-death-of-the-right-to-free-speech Don Weinstein be masquerading as "the boys?")

In any event, Mr. Weinstein then proceded to accuse me of deliberately misleading people and lying about the LAPD's polygraph policy, adding, "I doubt seriously if you will permit this posting to be shown to your readers." Of course, we don't censor the views posted to the AntiPolygraph.org message board, in contrast to the moderators of the (presently malfunctioning) pro-polygraph PolygraphPlace.co m message board, who seem not to share Mr. Weinstein's and "the boys'" commitment to free speech.

Interestingly, free speech devotee Don Weinstein chose not to respond when it was pointed out that his accusations against me were without merit. (See Gino Scalabrini's post, A Message to Former APA President Don Weinstein.) Strange behavior for a past president of an organization that purports to be "dedicated to truth."

the boys,

Quote:


The reference was to your use of the plural to refer to yourself.

Quote:


We've discussed Dr. Richardson's credentials at length in the message thread devoted to his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge, which you (and the rest of the polygraph community) evidently lack the self-confidence to accept.

Quote:


Nothing in Gino's latest response to you suggests that he is "rattled." But your childish taunts suggest that perhaps you are? Why not respond directly to this relevant question that Gino put to you (and that you so artlessly dodged):

"Are questions like "Is today Friday?" used as comparison questions to check against relevant questions? Or, did the information in the article serve to perpetuate public misperceptions on polygraphy? Was George correct when he pointed out that the article contains an error? Tell the truth now."

Quote:


Before George and/or Drew states Drew's credentials, which I know qualify him as a polygraph expert (for a sneak preview, he not only graduated from the FBI's polygraph school at the Department of Defense, which polygraphers seem to think qualifies them as experts, the man has a PhD in cardiovascular physiology and completed his doctoral dissertation on a polygraph related topic; I'll let him fill in the details if he so chooses), it is not necessary to have administered any polygraphs to judge whether the polygraph is a valid test or not.  That inquiry is more of a statistical analysis.

For example, an individual can judge the success rate of heart transplants without having performed any heart transplants.  An individual can judge the safety record of, say, American Airlines without being a pilot.  And I might add that polygraphers feel quite free to comment on the validity (or lack thereof) of voice stress analysis without having adminstered a voice stress test themselves.

Sorry,we missed that thing about "he who refers to himself as royalty". Please explain.

We will make you a deal. Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics? We could be wrong, but it seems to us that Georgie already admited that he placed that moniker on Drew. You have skirted the question long enough. Your readng public wants to know! If we are wrong, then we will graciously admit it, but we are not are we Drew?

And Gino, mia pizano! Don't get so rattled. This is an exchange ideas and comments.  It isn't healthy to lose your temper. We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it!

Quote:


Even if that were so (which it certainly is not), such a branding would be infinitely better than having the opposition's posts deleted from the bulletin board, as is the case 100% of the time in a pro-polygraph website.

You were wrong about Dr. Richardson's credentials, you were wrong about his administering polygraph interrogations, and you're wrong now.

Again, quite a curious thing, you referring to yourself in the plural.

The boys,

Quote:

We use the word because it describes precisely the arguments most often advanced by the polygraphers who post on this site.

Instead of your usual vacuous posts, perhaps a better way to go would be to tell us if you "boys" agree with this quote from the article:
Quote:


Are questions like "Is today Friday?" used as comparison questions to check against relevant questions? Or, did the information in the article serve to perpetuate public misperceptions on polygraphy? Was George correct when he pointed out that the article contains an error? Tell the truth now.

Quote:

If you feel that Scott Pelley's "Final Exam" piece on 60 Minutes came out in support of polygraphy, you are truly delusional. 

Oh Heavens no!!!.....okay, everybody out there....especially you "newsies"....we are only going to say this once......if you write anything publicly that differs in any fashion with that which the antipolygraph.org family writes, then you will be branded a conspirator with those mean, nasty polygraph folks....and God help you if you refuse to climb on their bandwagon....Hey George, does this mean that Scott Pelley and some of the folks from the national networks/newspapers who refused to get embroiled in your "ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough) arguments and give you a unending soapbox for your pointless arguments have now slipped to the "other side" 

On Thursday, 27 June, I e-mailed the following question to Joe Bauman:
 
Quote:

 
I have not yet received any response. It appears that the Deseret News, having been made aware of the error in its reporting, has made a conscious editorial decision not to expose the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing."

If you share my concerns about the Deseret News' journalistic standards, you might also care to send a note of inquiry to reporter Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> and Deseret News editor Chuck Gates <chuck@desnews.com>.

Yesterday, I sent Deseret News correspondent Joe Bauman the following e-mail:

Quote:


Today he wrote back:

Quote:


Can you believe it?!

Quote:


I'm sure you do... As “Beech Trees” said, why don’t you let them know about the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge? If you would like us to invite them personally, please forward their mailing addresses to info@antipolygraph.org. 

Quote:


Not likely. A 'grapher did everything but try to physically rough me up and he still couldn't make me talk (not that there was anything to admit)--and this was before I had ever researched polygraphy. 

As every interrogator knows, one of the cardinal rules of interrogation is not to make an untrue statement of fact to a person being interrogated if there is a chance that the person may realize that you are being deceptive. For example, if a suspect was the getaway car driver in a bank robbery, the last thing a good interrogator wants to do is say to him "we have ten witnesses that saw you in the vault." At this point, the suspect knows that the interviewer actually has very little and is essentially grabbing at straws. Additionally, he knows that trickery is afoot and is very likely to be less than co-operative at this point.

Every polygraph examiner facing someone who has read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is immediately put into this unenviable position as an interviewer. Good luck getting a peep out of those readers with even a modicum of intelligence.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2002 at 9:51pm:


Eastwood,

That's great news! Please pass along the information concerning the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge to those one hundred or so examiners, won't you? Thus far not one polygrapher has been man enough to put his reputation and his credibility on the line-- perhaps you'll have better luck.

Dave

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.  They could make a career on your admissions.

Quote:


175 pages of details are available in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector .

Quote:


What a joke. You are essentially shouting out the window of a glass house. It’s sort of like how polygraphers feel that is acceptable for them to lie to those being “tested” but that it is not ethical for examinees to use countermeasures to protect themselves against erroneous results. 

Can you spell ‘hypocrite’? 

Eastwood wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2002 at 7:25pm:


I have a question for 'Eestwood'-- if you're so proud of your profession, why not post your true name? And give us some details about how you mislead and lie to your test subjects. And can you detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?

Dave

I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?  And give us some details about how you were mistreated?  And did you practice countermeasures on your tests as alleged by "poly cop"?   8)

The boorish behavior alluded to reflects the environment within the polygraph chamber, certainly in my experience, and from what I read, the experience of others.  There is no appeal to reason; they're just going to pursue their target through ad hominem attack, ridicule, intimidation, vituperation, and other low means.  Any question you ask is going to somehow get turned around against you.  There seems to be an unwritten (maybe written too) credo that you never should answer a question unless the answer serves the goal of undermining the target.

As to Horvath, he has an ethical obligation to correct the record.  Knowing the media, it would not surprise me at all if the reporter just got it wrong, as opposed to Horvath intentionally misleading him.  Regardless, Horvath is ethically bound to rectify it.

Quote:


Not a word. However, I did hear from Joe Bauman, who said that if he made a mistake, he would make a correction, and that he was asking Dr. Horvath to "help him sort things out."

As for the boorish tactics of the "other side," it's about what I've come to expect from polygraph "professionals."

George,

Any response, publicly or privately, from retired President Horvath?

On another note, I find it distressing to see 'the other side' stoop to such boorish, unprofessional, crass tactics here on this thread. Libeling both the originator of this thread as well as myself aptly demonstrates the desparation polygraphers feel over the existence of this website and the current message here on this thread-- that one of the most prominent members of the polygraph community abused the trust of a journalist in order to further his own agenda.

And, should anyone be interested, I have never commited a felony, nor did I lie concerning the commission of a felony on my part during any polygraph interrogation. 

Dave