I note that polygraph operator Ted Todd, whose website is emblazoned with the banner "Where The Truth Matters," has failed to respond to my challenge that he support his claim that a good polygraphist will catch someone trying to beat the polygraph "every time."

Apparently he has, however, ceased his practice of auctioning phone consultations on eBay.

bitesthedust,

You write, among other things, "[w]hen you make personal attacks against specific examiners for a job well done, you elevate them in the polygraph community..."

The public challenge to Ted Todd that is the subject of this post is not a personal attack, nor is it made in response to "a job well done." I have publicly challenged Mr. Todd to support his publicly made claim that a good polygraphist will catch someone trying to beat the polygraph "every time." (A reasonable person might infer from Mr. Todd's silence that perhaps he did not truly believe what he wrote.)

As for the rest of your post, if you believe that anything I have written on the topic of polygraphy is false or otherwise misleading, please feel free to post a correction.

Two block, thanks for your response.  I thought I heard on the news that a recent firing of a Dallas police officer was sparking more thorough background checks.  I might be wrong, but I also thought I heard that the officer passed his preemployment poly, but failed one during a internal affairs investigation concerning alleged excessive force allegations.  He failed to mention on his application that he was a suspect in a homicide investigation, he was charged with domestic battery, and a separate charge of public intoxication.  All of these incidents never came to the attention of the background unit when processing his application. I am in Dallas almost weekly on business, therefore I hear or read about a police misconduct case nearly every time I am there.  I know it is a major concern in Dallas right now.

"Nobody who has invested much time down a blind alley likes the messenger who shines a light at the brick wall up ahead." --The new Antipolygraph.org maxim

bitesthedust wrote on Oct 21^st, 2003 at 7:03pm:

Bruce

I try to ignore ignorance therefore, I won't respond to bitesthedust.

From what I read in the Dallas newspaper, the whole city and county government is in a mess. The fired officer actually failed his poly and was hired anyway. Appears to be an unqualified minority hire.

The mayor has tried to install, probably did, a ticket quota directive. Her statement to the police was "go out and make us some money". What a way to run a ship!! I wonder if the city and county officials could pass a poly. I'd wager, if they were investigated heavy enough, most cities, counties and yes state governments has BIG corruption skeletons in their closets. We all know about federal politicians and appointees.

Bites the dust, you come across as a complete and utter fool. First off, get your facts straight. George, as well as the majority of people who post on this site, did not lose his job to a polygraph exam.  He was never given the opportunity to work for the agencies that deemed him a liar.  Secondly, if you are stupid enough, not to mention naive enough to think that polygraphers are keeping the undesirables out of our law enforcement agencies, I worry about you.  Look at the situation in Dallas, Texas right now as I speak.  Their department is plagued with more internal problems than they know what to do with.  It seems that their polygraph policy has greatly let them down.  If their department would actually do proper background checks instead of relying on the lunacy of a polygraph exam to determine if a candidate is suitable for hire, they probably would not have anywhere near as many internal police problems as they do.  I live in the greater Miami Dade area, and its no secret how many problems Miami has had with dirty cops.  What does it say when a recognized scholar in the field of polygraphy says himself that polygraphs are trash. I tip my hat to Doug Williams.

poor George...  someone has to stand up for the bad guys, criminals and crooks, and of course the sex offenders and pedophiles who attack and prey on our children.  I truly believe you are the right person to do just that!  I am sorry you lost your job for lying, but that happens!  Your hatred and fear of the polygraph only reinforces that it works, and when conducted by a well-trained examiner, works DAMN GOOD!  I worry about you George...what is your blood pressure?  Have you ever tried yoga?  Perhaps a cruise is what you need...  Don't you have any family or friends, or grandkids you can focus on?  Isn't there anything positive in your life you can dwell on?  When you make personal attacks against specific examiners for a job well done, you elevate them in the polygraph community...  I am not mad at you...I worry about you....  You will never work for another law enforement agency where the "bad" guys MUST be weeded out....but you do a good job hosting web sites, and I now that is a position in demand now.  Good luck boy George, take care of yourself.

Good thing my name is not George (no offense George!)



Quote:

My initial post in this message thread included an inline link to an image of Ted Todd on PolygraphPlace.com. Ralph Hilliard, the proprietor of that website, demanded that I remove the link, arguing that such linking violated his copyright. I disagreed, and declined to remove the link.

Then Mr. Hilliard then came up with a Very Clever Idea. He placed a new image on PolygraphPlace.com with the same URL as the original image of Mr. Todd:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/images/aapptedtodd.jpg

which now displays the following message:

Quote:


The image of Ted Todd, who made the false and misleading claim that a good polygraphist will catch countermeasures every time, has been re-named and may now be viewed here:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/images/georgeyoucantusethispicture.jpg

Well, you win, Mr. Hilliard! The in-line link to Mr. Todd's picture has been removed, and I have replaced it with the above text link.

Since you have stated that AntiPolygraph.org "is not about the 'truth' about polygraph," perhaps you would care to tell us precisely what information on AntiPolygraph.org you believe to be untrue? While the PolygraphPlace.com message board is censored, and polygraph critics like myself are prevented from posting there, AntiPolygraph.org is not afraid of open debate, and you are welcome to post any criticisms you may have directly here.

Tell us, Mr. Hilliard, when Mr. Todd claimed that a good polygraphist will catch countermeasures every time, was he telling the truth? Why do you suppose Mr. Todd has thus far declined to publicly defend his publicly made claim?

I enjoyed perusing  Polygrapher Ted Todd's other auctions, for example the selling of his Southwest Airlines Rapid Reward miles, in which he apparently is attempting to knowingly circumvent Southwest Airlines' Rapid Rewards Membership Rules, specifically:

Rapid Rewards Awards are transferable; however, the Awards have no cash value and are void if sold, purchased, brokered, or bartered. Any violation of Rapid Rewards rules and regulations, including those related to Award use, will result in cancellation of your account and Awards.

Another shining example of ethics in the Polygraph community.

Dave

Quote:

I note that Mr. Todd's auction of a half hour of his time ended without any bids being offered (minimum bid was $50). For the record, here is the full eBay auction item description:

Quote:

Harris, it is true that not a single one of the polygraph operators whom I have publicly challenged to support the dubious claims they've publicly made has had the integrity to support his/her statements. But let's give Mr. Todd a chance.

George, none of these polygraphers will ever rise to the challenge.  The main reason is that they KNOW they lack the ability to detect countermeasure use even a third of the time.  They have to remain with their song about how they can or they would quite possibly be out of a job.  Personally I cannot see why anybody would put any faith in this practice to begin with, and even more I find it repulsive that polygraphers are so unrealistic to believe this trash they practice really works.

On 16 October 2003, I sent the following  e-mail to polygrapher Ted Todd at ted.todd@sbcglobal.net:


Dear Mr. Todd:

In a current eBay offering titled "1/2 hour Phone Consult w/ A Polygraph Expert" (Item number 2957256707), you claim that a good polygraph examiner will catch attempts to beat the polygraph "every time":

Quote:


However, there are no book chapters or articles in the polygraph literature explaining how a polygraph operator can reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect such countermeasures. Indeed, the available peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect such countermeasures. And in its recent report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, the National Academy of Sciences concluded (at p. 214) that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."

This being the case, I challenge you to support your claim that a good polygraphist will catch someone trying to beat the polygraph "every time." Why should anyone believe you instead of the National Academy of Sciences?

If you truly believe that "a good polygraphist" will catch countermeasures "every time," then why not accept Dr. Drew C. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge? Before turning down this challenge with the excuse that you cannot reveal your methodology, note that this challenge does not require that you disclose how you detect countermeasures, merely that you demonstrate your ability to detect them. This challenge has thus far gone 625 days without takers. Are you willing to be the first?

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

PS: This public challenge in response to your publicly made claim will be posted on the AntiPolygraph.org message board. You are welcome to reply there.