Quote:


George is in the process of creating his legacy. But, I do admire your loyalty to Mr. Gelb. Loyalty is an attribute sorely lacking in our shallow society.

George, I'm a licensed private investigator in California, I worked with Ed for a number of years in the late 90"s early 2000. Ed had a professional offices in Los Angels and Santa Ana for many years. Ed is an icon in the private investigations profession. The doctorate designation concern means nothing in relation to his experience and value to the justice system he severed during his career.

What's your legacy? Not much in comparison, I would imagine.

so its pretty safe to say that AntiPolygraph.org may mean AntiLiar.org.    These professional liars, lie to those taking these silly tests and if they don't feel that you aren't lieing well enough, you by their silly standards fail.   hmmmm.    ooops, i just used the anal sphincter contraction!   now what???

Quote:



Brandon,

I must agree with you on this.  Your science is MUCH more exact that mine, more accurate, more reliable, and even with greater utility.  After all, by the time you see the subject, he is definately DEAD.  No contraversy, no false positives or negatives, no anti-post mortum websites, no  death countermeasures, and no need for the dead to confess as to their physiological state.

I sort of envy you

Nonombre. 

Nonombre,

Believe it or not my job probably brings questions such as yours.  When I mention what I do for a living I recieve interest as well.  I work with persons of the post-mortem type.  Always a party topic much as yours.  I have noticed more of an interest in the sensational news stories much as you most likely have noticed regarding your profession.  Forgive my mortician-like humor but I come by it naturally.  However, my current employment is not as contraversial as yours.  I find they die you find they lie.  Mine is a more exact science.

anxietyguy wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 5:24am:


Not very nice, are you?

nonombre wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 4:41am:


Probably because they are too ignorant to know any better, and actually think that it is a "lie detector." Which would make sense because fools hang out with fools.

Anxietyguy

Jeffery wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 3:48am:


Actually I have quite few 'normal, non-cop friends."  I have taught part time at a community college, am active in my community,  and when I tell people I am a polygraph examiner, most are quite fascinated.

Nonombre
   

nonombre wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:54am:

Were you moonlighting doing security work?  Proves my point; a polygrapher's social outlets are with cops or doing cop type work.

Do polygraphers have any normal, non-cop friends?  What do you tell those people about what you do for a living?

Quote:


Seriously,

Sometimes it is okay to back up and take a short break from all this.  Humour is not a bad way to do that.  You see, not all polygraph examiner's are "a-- holes," and not all anti-poly guys are "losers."  I for one am always willing to listen and to keep an open mind.

Nonombre.
   

   

oops...you're right.  I must have temporarily thought I was logged onto the polygraphplace message board.  Absolutely no humor allowed there.      

Quote:


Aw, lighten up "Francis."

As much fun as the three previous posts may be, I have to ask what they have to do with polygraph?

Jeffery wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:45am:


I pulled security duty at a Grass Roots concert once.  How about that?

nonombre wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:18am:


The policemen's ball and police retirement's don't count.

Matty wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 10:16pm:


Yes, 

I am frequently invited to social gatherings.

Nonombre

With a stupid name like "Prick" it's no wonder he makes such a stupid post, and it's no wonder why he chooses such a stupid profession ad polygraphy.

Here is the problem Prick; polygraphy relies on fear. The polygraph experience is in and of itself intimidating to those who are unfamiliar with it.  There is no presumption of innocence but rather a presumption of guilt! You know that to be true!

If a subject during a pre-employment polygraph answers all questions honestly, as instructed by the lying polygrapher, that person has a very good chance of failing the test or showing inconclusive, (in which case they are NOT given the benefit of the doubt)

There are many reasons why a person could show a reaction to a question that have nothing to do with deception...and you know this, Prick. Showing strong reactions alone, in the absence of damaging admissions means nothing, Prick.

It's you and people like Nonombre who choose a profession where you try to catch people in lies and deny them their dreams who are very sad and vindictive people. Who would choose such a field?? What do you tell people you meet at social gatherings you do for a living? Are you even invited to social gatherings? 

You, in the polygraph profession choose to be in a field that is proven to be very flawed and as a result; falsely accuses innocent people of guilt and denys honest & law abiding people jobs they deserve.

Stop lying to people by telling them to just be truthful and don't apply CM's and everything will be okay. I would love for there to be a lye whereas all polygraphers were made to pass a polygraph.....oh wait, they would all pass because they know how to beat that junk machine...

I dealt with Ed Gelb today.

Unfortunately, I didn't get polygraphed. I was hoping to see what all the fuss is about. 

As far as him seeming arrogant or something, he seemed nicer than most cops I've dealt with. 
As far as the "Diploma mill" stuff, either he is a PhD, or he isn't. 


If you think he is a fraud, or not a PhD, then say it. 


He has been in some pretty high profile cases, and I'm sure his background has been scrutinized a lot better, by people a lot more qualified than you folks.
A lot of you sound bitter, because you lied, and failed. 
There are a lot of steps in the "weeding out" phase of law enforcement. 
Even if you made it through the polygraph stage, you more than likely would have failed in other areas. 
And from the looks of the whining, failure doesn't seem like it's anything new to some of you.

It is indeed sad that Mr. Gelb has falsely represented himself as a Ph.D. (and even sadder that he continues to do so after having being exposed as a phony). But there can be little doubt but that he obtained his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill. You'll find the case against Gelb succinctly documented here:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml

Could you tell me in what year(s) Gelb served as president of the American Polygraph Association? I am interested in knowing whether it was before or after he began passing himself off as a Ph.D.

On an unrelated topic, you mentioned a federal statute that requires that all polygraph examiners maintain their files for a period of five years. I was unaware of any such law. Could you provide a reference?

How sad it would be if Ed Gelb has held his academic history out to be something that it was not.  I know Mr. Gelb personally.  For the life of me I cannot understand why he would do that since he had already achieved the pinnacle of success.  He has been the president of Intercept which he started in the early 70's, he is the past president of the American Polygraph Association and I know from personal experience that he is an extraordinary skilled interviewer.  I know these things because I used to work with Ed as an investigator back in the early 70's and while I knew him to be a talented and tough investigator, I also knew him to be quite fair and extremely honest.  While I have not had much interaction with him over these past fifteen or twenty years, and while I am a direct competitor of his firm, on the occasions that I have sought his help, he has taken the time to work with me.  I do know that quite a few polygraph examiners were getting mail order degress but Ed Gelb is a uniquely smart man whom I suspect would not shortcut this process.  I could be wrong and sincerely hope that I am.  If I am wrong, while extremely dissapointed, my own experiences with him would insist that I recall him in a very positive way.  I could never discard all the great work that he has done to clear the innocent and identify the guilty.  I know that this post will draw the ire of many, and yes, I too have been an investigator and polygraph technician for almost forty years.  I have made no attempt to hide this and unlike what some of you want to believe about Mr. Gelb, he has always been very straightforward with me and those of us who have worked with him in the past.  As I have done for almost four decades, I will save my final opinion until all of the evidence is in.  Anyone who has ever been accused of a crime would expect nothing less.  By Federal statute, Mr. Gelb and all other polygraph examiners must preserve the polygraph charts for a period of five years.  Mr. Gelb knows full well that his work could be inspected at any time by any interested Federal agency and while serious questions now exist about his academic training, I have, and will continue to have the highest level of confidence in his polygraph work.  Incidentally, he was voted into the presidency of the A.P.A. by his peers and as I recall, it was a landslide win.  During his tenure with that office, I recall a campaign wherein he did a massive survey on the voluntariness of those taking the test and he has done extraordinary validity and reliability research.  I know that because I participated in that research.

 i had the unfortunate meeting with Gelb at a interrogation of a company situation.  He was trying to stare me down prior to questioning.   He introduced himself as "Dr. Edward Gelb"  wearing his fancy cowboy boots.  i wasn't polygraphed by him, but was angry at his foolish questioning.   Gelb worked for our company and I have always felt that he was somehow, someway always easily "swayed" to answer for the former company that I worked for.   Gelb comes off as a self-aggrandising piece of crap.  Never liked him, never will.  Him or his fancy cowboy boots!  He really seems self-righteous, after all he did work for LAPD and I am sure he's got "friends" he can call upon.

Does anyone know when Mr. Gelb was an guest instructor at the FBI's advanced polygraph course?

It would be interesting to find out if this was after he started claiming to have a PhD.

I wonder if the FBI just took him at face value, or actually checked his background?

Saidme wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2003 at 12:48am:


I see. So, it's the perception we anti-polygraph types have concerning the efficacy of countermeasures that is criminal? What are you now, Saidme, the Thought Police? Your response is absurd and is highly illustrative of your murky thought processes.

Quote:


Uh huh.

Quote:


If the charge held any merit whatsoever, I would have responded. However, since you're on a long roll of wild, meritless accusations, why not use that law enforcement role God gave you and attempt to arrest those of us here whom you feel are breaking the law?

BT

I guess I'm puzzled by your response.  Where in that thread did I say CM's are not detectable?  I think I wrote:  "with information you perceive will assist them..."  Perceive would be the operative word in that phrase.  Please don't misinterpret that I've changed my stance on detecting CM's.  I do concede that a ill prepared examiner could give credibility to your crude CM's you pitch on that website.   

As to the remaining thread, I noticed you decided not to respond to the hypocrisy charge.  I understand.

Saidme wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2003 at 7:43pm:


Yes you made your feelings quite clear. You think that because Mr. Gelb was at one time a police officer, he should not be held accountable for his illegal, unethical behavior ('let's not put the police on trial'), and because his expert testimony did not go towards the scientific accuracy of the polygraph, his testimony would likely be unaffected by the fact that he's a serial perjurer. Of course you ignore the fact that a man who would so casually lie in an oath before the courts about his credentials would also likely lie about anything else he wished to.

Quote:


I don't understand this new assertion of yours, Saidme. In various previous posts you have written:

Quote:


So.... I'm puzzled, Saidme. If the information concerning countermeasures here is actually valid and impossible for you to detect, thus enabling criminals to get away with whatever it is you wish to frighten us with, what's with the previous multitude of assertions that countermeasures are easily detected? Were you lying then, or are you lying now?