Point in fact.

If the Texas examiners like Maria and TAPE would just leave me alone and stop spreading lies, I wouldn't have to come here is state the truth.  

What shocks me, is people are so eager to listen to unprovable lies, over the documented truth.

Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 2:18am:


But this is where we 110% agree, with one caveat (do to speak)

Not all of us are like that.  Some of us just want to offer a fair product, at a fair, but yet competitive price.  Having said that, if you look at the pricing, especially here in Texas, you can see that everyone is "on the same page."  Competitive pricing does not exist in Texas, because it is strongly discouraged, or at least I have seen it be strongly discouraged, in the past.  Also, I have taken a lot of crap and criticism for my competitive fee structure.   

You can go ahead and wax poetic about statistics, and theory all you want.  I will stick with facts and the past and current behaviors of people in this industry.  Because that is what really makes the point.  If polygraph is 90 to 93% accurate, why is it that none some of the most prominent examiners refused to use it to settle a long fought issue, and take me out of business like they said they wanted to do?   

Hey maria, that is a good question to you directly.  You want to flap your big mouth about how you want to take me out of business.  If you were telling the truth and I was lying, you could have been the hero and done it in two hours; why didn't you?


Polygraph Examinations or "Lie Detector Tests" can be used in a variety of ways to resolve important issues for our clients.  A polygraph examination can  verify the truthfulness of a statement, or the veracity of a witness and is used by individuals, business owners/employers, attorneys, and professional counselors/clinicians along with supervision officers  for the treatment and monitoring of individuals on active probation or parole. 
Correctly administered, a lie detector test utilizing the polygraph examination, can be 87% to 94% accurate when a trained polygraph examiner uses a reliable and validated testing format.  Texas Polygraph Services exclusively utilizes testing formats that have been validated by research and that are used extensively by the United States Government.

Is that not direct quotes from your website?

Lets ask maria.

If polygraph is 93% accurate, why did you run from it to take me out of business if you are telling the truth and I am lying?

Is it because you are afraid the accuracy rates are incorrect; or is it that you feel the accuracy rates are correct, and you didn't want to be exposed for the liar you are?

I think it's a fair question.  Albeit, its the "either or" or the "alternative" question, but these frankly are the only two possible options.   

You do remember what John Rios said was the reason someone would refuse to take a polygraph, don't you maria.  I wonder if he thinks your refusal is because you're lying?  It must be, because that is what he said about people who won't take the test.   

Curious, how does it feel to have your own, former President, and current Chairman of the Board of Directors, thinking you're a liar?   

Hey, he is the one who said it.  Someone who is afraid of taking the test, is someone who is lying.  His words.... Happy to link the video.

I will eagerly await your response.

I do wonder how your customers can believe anything you say if the answer is that you're lying.  In the alternative, I wonder how any of your customers can believe your sincerity, or confidence in your test, if you simply don't believe the accuracy rates; but that would make you a liar and a charlatan.  Because if you don't believe in the accuracy, and that is your reason for not taking the test, does that not mean you're posting the accuracy rates, so you can dupe people into using you?

Very interesting behavior for someone who sells a "lie detector test," no?  Glad she is not a doctor.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 12:12am:


That's where we differ, Joe.

Polygraph is junk science.

It's all about money.

You know I respect your opinion.  I just don't share that pessimistic view of this profession.  I do share your pessimistic view of some of the people in this industry, and the pessimistic view of how issues in the industry are addressed.   

The problem is not the test, the problem is the people, and the culture that has been allowed to breed and rot the structure.   

Attacking the test is mental and verbal masturbation.  I have come to the firm resolution that it's the behaviors of some of the people within the industry more appropriate and valid targets to make your point.   

Again, it is easy for people like Ray to counter attack rhetoric and statistical arguments.  It is impossible to to counterattack behaviors that actually are examples of your argument, until the actions and behaviors are confronted and addressed.   

Bottom line, there are examiners, prominent examiners, whose actions send a message that prominent people within the industry might even have doubts in regard to accuracy.  Actions speak louder than words, and lack of action in addressing this problem is further problematic.

If they do believe in the accuracy of polygraph, they can come here, or call me and tell me I am wrong. Problem is, by telling me I am wrong about this creates a internal problem that they are in denial about, or are afraid to address; that these examiners are the liars, unethical and awful people who take joy in destroying the truth, and the life of someone who told the truth.   

No one wants to admit that they enable awful people, with awful motives and intentions.  Worse yet, people have a hard time confronting that they have been enablers of that kind of behavior.  Then comes the hard work of addressing and fixing the problem.  That would require confronting the awful people and themselves for allowing the awful actions of people and the pain they cause to gleefully.

I would say this to their faces, but none of the people engaging in the awful actions have the courage to face me, talk to me on the level, and look in the mirror.   

Problem is, and I will say it again, there can be no change without confrontation; and if I am wrong, they lack the courage to tell me eye to eye, and then defend their positions in a way that effects productive debate.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:


Joe, the polygraph-indu$try termites are laughing all the way to the bank.

The "test" is all a big con.

There is overwhelming evidence that shows polygraph is a pseudo-scientific fraud.

The legal, medical and scientific communities have condemned polygraph "testing" since the 1920s -- nearly 100 years!

George Maschke is right, Doug Williams is right, and the late great Drew Richardson was right.

"Polygraph science" is a sick joke.

I suggest you cut back on the APA/NPA Kool-Aid.

It ain't healthy.

Change, real and sustainable change, only occurs when the real problems and actions are confronted, exposed, leveled and then redesigned and built into a stronger structure.

That is my ultimate end goal.  To make us what we say we are as an industry.  To do that, I have to expose the termites that are infesting and weakening the integrity of the structure from within.    Many times, you don't even know they are there, until it's too late; and when it's too late, the structure has to be condemned.   

I don't want that.  Want to rip out the infested areas, address the infestation, so the structure can be then fixed and rebuilt stronger.

There can be no change, without confrontation.  A wise man, said that to me a little over ten years

Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:


Not true and I'll give you an example.  Pleae understand, details are intentionally vague to comply with the law and protect privilege.

Recently I perfumed a polygraph where the request was made for the county to have their "expert" to review my charts.  I have no issue with their "expert" reviewing my charts, knowing that 9 times out of ten, that "expert" will be an examiner from a company with a spotty history; you do the math.  The one thing I won't do is surrender my charts, so they can sit in their file cabinet, do with as this unethical examiner pleases.  If they want to review my work, they will do so in my presence and they will not be allowed to take care, control or management of any data.

If someone wants to look at my data, and they are authorized by the examine or lawyer of the examinee, I will allow them to look at the data.  I do nothing wrong, I run good charts, a fair test, I have nothing to hide.   

On another occasion, during the lawsuit, I was asked to let a county DA's office "expert" to review my charts.  I was told it was going to happen at the courthouse and that I would be there for the review.  When I got there, the charts were snatched from my hands by the DA's investigator, they walked away, and I never saw them again.  I know those chard were being sent to Holden's office, as they were that county's golden boys at the time.  I didn't fuss about it because I knew those charts, and the rest of the data were spotless.  It's important to note, that my charts were still included in the Grand Jury packet, and my examine was acquitted , partly due to his passed test.  If anything was wrong with those charts or the data, and I am sure, given the hostility at the time, they looked hard, my test would have been tossed and the GJ would not have seen the test.   

SO yea, the idea of me not wanting to have anyone other than the above listed names looking at my charts, my history, says your assertion is bullshit.

Also, if Garry, Ray, or Don Ramsey saw my charts and something was wrong, I am 110% confident that they would toss me under the bus, after a long and unpleasant ass chewing.   

Lastly, I have no cronies or minions.  I know that I have no "friends" in this industry, in the same regard as they may have "friends."  Whenever I would away from any examiner, I always check for a knife in my back after that meeting or discussion; and I am always suspect of everyone and their true intentions.  The situation of Maria betraying me like a rat, made me realize that I should trust no one; EVER.  In my eyes, everyone is a potential rat.   

Thats a shame, because there are people in the NPA and APA, that I have great respect for.  There are some, that if they called me at three in the morning, I would get out of bed and come running to help them in a heartbeat; but trust died inside of me in 2009.  The rat did her job well.   

SO yea, making me sound as if I am a part of any, inside good ole boys club, you are climbing up the wrong tree there; you will find no fruit.   

Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:


You assume too much.  I will say this, before I handed you charts, I would make damn sure everything was copyright protected to assure no unauthorized publication of my work.  But as long as that protection were there, yea, I would let you look at charts and data.  Good luck finding anything, because other than me talking like a sailor in pre and post test (F bombs, I am from Boston and all), you will find nothing that will nullify the test.  Best of luck.   

I do everything on the up and up, and I have no shame in regard to my work product.   

My only concern would be your ability to be unbiased in your review.  Sometimes Dan, I honestly believe that you lack objectivity and it is possible, you would let your agenda cloud objectivity.  I don't think you do this for nefarious reasons, I believe that your intentions are well meant, just not totally objective; but we've had friendly debates about that before.

I think you need to put away your OCD in attacking reliability with your interpretations of studies and numbers that can be easily argued and dismissed, and focus on behavior, which is far more telling in regard to the real problem in this industry.   

Because that is the true test of a product.  If the product is that good, and that reliable, why is it that the people selling that product, or providing that service, avoiding using that product?  Now there is an interesting question.   

If I owned a restaurant, and I refused to eat the food doing out of my own kitchen, what does that say about my confidence in the product, and service I sell?  Maybe my customers should call the health department, don't you think?  I'll say this, I wouldn't be in business long.

It is easy to argue statistics and subjective interoperation of study data.  It's behavior that tells the real story over the product sold or consumed.   

have you noticed that Ray was engaging you, and waxing poetic on the subject when the argument consisted of interpretation of studies and rhetoric; but when I call to the plate actual behaviors of examiners, how those examiners fear their own test, and other examiners being critical of me for expecting us to use the product we sell to verify or refute the credibility of accusations made which are completely testable?

He can't defend their behavior and lack of willingness to submit to the very product we say is accurate and reliable. So the conversation ends, rather than him admitting, that their at ions might send a poor message to the public, that examiners feel that the test is good for everyone else, but not good enough for us.

The message I sent was, I believe so strongly in the product I sell, that I don't expect anyone to sit in a chair, i wouldn't sit in myself.  Now that generates consumer confidence.  That promotes polygraph, and promote ethical integrity within the industry.

The only message that the examiners involved in my situation send, confirm much of what you say.   

Now I am gong to re ask this question.

If countermeasures are so good, and so undetectable, why didn't Maria et al just jump all over my offer, cheat the test, and get rid of me?  If countermeasures work that well and are tat undetectable, you would think an examiner would know how to perform better than anyone.   

Hmmmmmm I guess they don't really believe countermeasures are as effective as some believes.  So I guess everyone is wrong.  I guess that makes us all content.   

You and I agree on so much, but have different end goals.  I want to make polygraph better by cleaning up what is dirty, so what is left with is the real mission of who we should be.   

busting your balls dan

Joe, don't take me quite so literally.

Set aside, for a moment, your self-inflicted OCD bondage with TAPE and look at things in a more general sense.

By "buddy system," I simply mean like-minded polygraph advocates who are seen as qualified examiners within the industry-- not politically reliable cronies. In other words, polygraph operators with whom you are on the same page, philosophically speaking. True believers in the "test."

Certainly, you'd allow your raw data to be reviewed by the likes of, say, Gary Davis, Ray Nelson, and your polygraph mentor of whom you speak so glowingly. I'm sure there are others.

By contrast, you would never allow your complete polygraph file to be reviewed by an adversarial polygraph realist such as myself.

The reason: Fear of having your work product shown to be so deficient that it warrants nullification of your "test."

Virtually any polygraph "test" can be nullified. In my consulting practice, I've assisted many a victim of a proclaimed false result by reviewing their polygraph "test" and documenting a lengthy list of fatal flaws. 

My polygraph nullification service is both affordable and effective. It provides victims with much-needed relief, and helps remedy the damage done by the often pernicious false result of a polygraph "test."

Anyone who wishes to learn more about my polygraph nullification services is welcome to contact me via www.polygraphman.com.

If I knew which examiners you were talking about dan, I could offer you way better insight and opinion.   

The buddy system...............  LMAO

Dan, name one person.... ONE PERSON, who is my "buddy" that would protect me, or I him.  I am the most despised person in the industry.  Whats funny is, I am the most despised because of the truth and documented facts, I continue to call the polygraph establishment on.  This is why I am actually a bigger threat to these people than you are, because I have document ion backing me up; in most cases, their own documentation.   

Yes, sometimes you make some good points with the information you have, some times.  What I have, that frankly you lack, is documentation of establishment examiner's acts and behavior.

I have proof, though years of documented behavior, that the establishment polygraph examiners, in the state of Texas, either doesn't believe the 93% accuracy rate, and in fact will avoid being subject to their own, "accurate and reliable" tests; or, they know polygraph works, and they are avoiding being subject to their own test, knowing their lies and unethical behaviors will be exposed. 

I can prove there is corruption in the industry, this is why they try so hard to silence and ostracize me.   

The one thing that is consistent is, the examiners say that countermeasures are detectable.  If they weren't, why would they have not taken the test and employed the undetectable countermeasures?  Toy still haven't answered hat question.

You want to have a discussion about polygraph accuracy, I think the questions I put out there, surrounding the behaviors of those within and part of the polygraph establishment, having an aversion to being subject to their own test, is not only legitimate, but the sudden silence is both telling and concerning

You are right about one thing, I will not surrender until the issues are addressed and put to rest.  Every time I am quiet, and try to move on, someone inside of TAPE reminds me, that they won't let go.

They will say of course that I am not capable, but they know that is not true.  A peace an agreements were made between myself and another vary, and I have 110% backed off that party and kept my word.  To that Party's credit, so have they.

Bottom line, you don't like it when I make it a point to be fair and unbiased to a system for which you seem to have a lot of bias.  On the other hand, the industry and the party still involved hate it when I use their own behavior and documentation to expose what is wrong in the industry within the state of Texas.

You want to to give opinion over a case in which I don't have some basic information and data.   

In any case, I assure you, I have no, buddies; and no one is my buddies, for me to even start playing the buddy system.   

Buddy system..... LMAO..... Dan, you're so cute

If the customer themselves asked, I would go to my legal council to protect the material from unauthorized dissemination, especially with video, though copyright laws; ;but after doing everything I can to make sure stuff doesn't turn up on the internet unauthorized, I am obligated to give that information, if they paid for the test.   

What I could not do, is hand charts and data over to certain polygraph examiners in the state of Texas.  If they ant to see my client's data, they can take their crusty asses to my office, and review the data in my presence, so long as the sharing of that information is authorized.  Because I deal with some attorney tests, I do have to be concerned with privilege

George, I predict Joe would never surrender  -- that's how polygraph apologists look at it -- the raw data including video -- directly to the customer.

Polygraph operators are loathe to subject their work product to a second opinion. They only do so within the polygraph-operator "buddy system," i.e., other like-minded polygraph advocates.

Medical patients have a right to their records, including test results. Polygraph should be no different.

Joe,

If a customer asked you for the PF (or similar) file of their polygraph examination, including the video recording, would you provide that data to the customer? If not, why not?

George

PS: I'd also be interested in the answers of any other polygraph examiners reading this to the above questions.

As for the other examiner you speak of, I don't know who it is, I haven't seen any charts, so I can offer no opinion in regard to that examiners character or testing ability.

I'll say this much, I am glad someone is handling infidelity issues, because I won't touch infidelity cases, unless there is a shrink involved.   

Once someone gets to a point in a relationship where you have to get polygraph involved, it's done, and there is little to no chance of saving it.  Whenever I get calls about infidelity testing, I always tell them their money is better spent on a therapist or lawyers.  In my personal opinion, no one comes out of those tests a winner, regardless of the outcome.  So, I'm glad someone is taking them, because id rather stick an ice pick in my eye, before I do one of those tests again.  Too much emotion and drama, and dealing with the crap I have to deal with down here, i'm all filled up.

Fact is, those relationships were done before they even walked into that polygraph room.   

In regard to getting charts... and i say this with all due respect, you give off the impression here like you have a dog in the race to find anything that can be tossed in the examiners face.  Things is, if you look at anything hard enough, anyone can find anything.   

You give off the impression that you lack objectivity.  And I get it, you are on a mission and part of that mission is to discredit as much as you can or at least that is the impression you sometimes set.   

I am very careful not to do that.  I have had to swallow my pride a couple times and tell people, that examiners I hate did nothing wrong, and my results confirm their findings.  Ugh, the bitter taste of pride when I have to do that.   

While I have the ability, and believe it or not, self control to remain independent and unbid, others in Texas do NOT.

Example, I have stood up for maria, and her procedure on at least two occasions.  My love for what i do for a living is greater than the deep disdain I have for H&R Puff and Stuff.  Honestly, if she called m, asking for my charts, the only sound she would hear is, GFY and then a dial tone.   

Now if someone wants to grow some balls and come to my office to view charts, different ball game.  Come on in, look at the charts, I'll even buy lunch, truce will be called, but nothing is leaving this office, no copies made, and no pictures.   

With the files full of charts I have that the other examiner I have run, they stay in those files, under lock and key.  I will never put my agenda ahead of that of a persons charts; no matter how bad they are.  Trust me, some are total crap; and while it would give be great pleasure to expose their crap work, there is a line I would never cross and that is one of them.   

Sometimes dan, the impression you give, is that is a line you would cross.  I am not saying you are that guy, it's just the impression you give people.

On the other hand, to be fair, I don't know about the conversation, mane the guy was being a wold class douche.   

I guess what I am saying, I lack the data to give you an opinion on the said Forensic Psycho Physiologists in question. Not sure I want to know. Because CEU time is coming up and fighting with these people to get the hours to renew my license makes me want to vomit in my mouth.  While I have done my best in 2014 to make peace with them and to act in good faith, the new power dynamic in TAPE does not ale me hopeful about an in and out, don't crappity smack with me, I won't crappity smack with you, truce that occurred last time with Jon Rios; even if he did go back in his word.   

The situation that these examines had was FUBAR, long before they made the call to make the appointment for the test.  Trust me, whomever these examiners are, those marriages were done.  They probably didn't help, but I doubt they did anymore damage than that of what was already done.   

Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 5^th, 2016 at 1:31am:



Actually, I was asking for input in regard to the following post.

"Oh, and another good argument. If counter measures were that damn good, you would think the Texas examiners would have had no problem in performing them, and thus got rid of me.  If they are so non detectable, you would think that an examiner can do it better then anyone, and not get caught.  

Personally, if I had been them, I would have jumped all over it; and enjoyed being rid of a nemesis, along with having the ability to humiliate said nemesis publicly once and for all.

Yet they avoided the test, probability to engage in countermeasures and all.



hmmmmm, if countermeasures really were that good and undetectable, why wouldn't the use them?  

it is a valid question"

Yes, some of that addresses the issue of behavior.

If we go by behavior, 

Some of the "most respected polygraph examiners" in Texas, and in some cases, the country, either

Don't believe in the accuracy and reliability of the polygraph test 

or

They do believe in the accuracy and reliability of the test, and they don't want to be exposed for what and who they truly are publicly 

Either option poses a problem to the industry.  Problematic in regard to what their behavior says about the test they sell, based on the documented accuracy and reliability rates they quote on their web sites and tell customers.  

Now let's contrast.

The one examiner, that they say is a "discredit" to the industry, is the ONLY examiner, EVER, who has publicly proclaimed his belief in the polygraph product; and offered to leave the profession forever, if the result was deceptive.  Does that sound like the actions of a man who feels polygraph is a fraud? 

I believe in polygraph and it's accuracy, along with what we say we stand for, so much, That I put my whole future and livelihood on the table, all in, based on the results of a test I sell and ask people to put their trust.  That is not the act of a man that believes that the product I sell to be a fraud.  It is also not the act of one who is a discredit to the industry.  

On the contrary.  

Publicly making myself accountable to the very test we sell, with my future hanging in the balance of the results of that test, makes me more of a credit and advocate to this industry, than that of any examiner who has held office in TAPE from 2008 to today, with the exception of one person. 
  
I firmly Believe, the problem is not in the test. We can argue that point back and forth, but we'd be spinning our wheels. 

I also believe the problem is not in the principals which are laid out in many constitution preambles and mission statements, in many associations in this industry.   

The problem in the Texas polygraph industry, is TAPE and the people who justify their behavior, lack of transparency, and the absence of ethical values of certain people, including, but not limited to, the current sitting officers of TAPE. 

I also feel the problem in the industry, rests on the shoulders of those who make excuses for the examiners who have run from the test they sell; instead of condemning them for hiding from their responsibilities and obligations, as leaders within the industry to lead by example. 

The problem in this industry rests on the shoulders of those with influence. People who won't, or are too afraid to demand that TAPE follow its own bylaws; and insist that no one is above those bylaws due to  their position.  People like maria, who violated Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners bylaws.  

I love this industry, and what we say we stand for.  I will never say that polygraph is a fraud.  

Polygraph is not a fraud.  It's certain examiners, within the Texas Polygraph Industry, that I know to be frauds. I base my opinion off past behaviors of those examiners; behaviors that are well documented.  

Maybe the question you should be asking, is why prominent members in the industry either do not believe in the accuracy of polygraph to put their faith in a test that is supposed to be 93% accurate?  

or 

If they do believe in the 93% accuracy, what are they trying to hide by refusing the test when the offer was on the table and could have put the entire manner to rest, once and for all?

or

Why the industry would continue to embrace these people who either don't believe in the accuracy of the tests they sell, and what kind of a message that sends to the public?

In the alternative, why would the industry continue to embrace examiners who would refuse the test out of fear of being exposed as unethical examiners and leaders within the industry, given the message that sends to the public?

Lastly, why does the industry not support someone who clearly desires to fix the problems; and has promoted the accuracy and reliability of polygraph, in a way no other examiners has ever done before, by offering to sit in the fair myself, while these prominent examiners in Texas did everything they could to avoid the test, for one reason or another?  

I guess the thing that shocks me the most, is why CSCD's and therapists would continue to use examiners who don't believe in the test they sell, or is avoiding the test because those examiners are scared of having their unethical behavior exposed?  

But then again, Texas is a place that rewards a firm with a 45% inconclusive rate behind them, in contrast with an examiner who has consistently enjoyed a 3 to 10% inconclusive rate since the day Fenian polygraph Services opened its doors; and on one occasion, caught countermeasures that none of their "more experiences examiners" could catch, in multiple tests, that the examinee said he successfully beat.

LOL, I still think that is kinda funny, the great examiners at Richard Wood and Associates; 45% of the time they couldn't tell if someone was telling the truth or a lie (according to the discovery obtained during the 2008 lawsuit, from their own lawyers) and on other occasions, got duped by a trade school dropout.  I have pointed this out in the past in 2008 or 09 on a different string.  

Of course Richard and Clayton will call me a liar, at which point I encourage them to call Noah Webster and file a libel lawsuit.  But before they do, I think they should know that I kept everything from that lawsuit.  Every email, sheet of discovery, polygraph reports, charts, fax.... I kept everything. 

OK, Joe, you want input on behavior?

By all means, let's talk about the behavior of "certified forensic psycho-physiologists."

In the past 24 hours alone, I've been contacted by two self-proclaimed victims of polygraph fidelity "testing."

In both cases, as a result of a polygraph "test, their marital homes -- which include young confused heartbroken children -- are now shattered, perhaps irrevocably.

In both cases, the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" refuses to release the raw data (including video) for review by an independent consultant. This is in spite of the vehement protestations of the accused spouses, who adamantly maintain they are innocent.

The only thing the aggrieved spouses seek is an independent review; a second opinion.

Is that too much to ask?

Evidently it is.

BTW, Joe, one of the aforementioned "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" practices in the great state of Texas. You probably know him.

But there's more... 

I spoke with one of these polygraph operators last night. When I informed the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" that his subject demanded he release the PF file (including video) for my review, the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" hung up on me.

Yes, Joe, behavior speaks volumes.

In any event, these two "certified forensic psycho-physiologists," by virtue of their unsupported opinions, busted up two families with absolutely no research on their fidelity-specific "testing" to back up their findings.

Incredibly, both of these "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" flatly refuse to release their files.

As we say in the army, that's FUBAR.

So, Joe...in your opinion, is polygraph "testing" a pseudo-scientific fraud?

If not, please explain the actions of the "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" to which I refer.

really dan, no input or insight into at least that past post?  I expect the polygraph establishment to put up the draw bridge; they have to, because to question these people would be to admit that Texas has been willing to run around like feral children with matches around houses built of Lincoln logs.

I never understood that, why it is that some in the establishment don't want to put Texas in its place?  You would think, that with the facts laid out, people would lead by example and fix something in industry that is proven to be broken and corrupted.  I am not saying polygraph is corrupt; I am saying that by allowing TAPE, Maria, et al to continue with their behaviors and not fix it with corrective action, of some sort, or at least publicly acknowledge that they were wrong for some of what they did, the people who turn a blind eye, allow who and what we should be to be corrupted by indifference.

The polygraph world does not revolve around Texas, though it seems people in the industry will never tell Texas that publicly.  Never understood that.  The Texas polygraph industry is hostage to a small circle of leadership, who have done little to nothing of value for the industry, and have done and only have interest to do for themselves at the expense of others.   

ugh

Anyway, I wasn't thinking you would join the indifference.  

I though for sure you would chime in with some opinion, in regard to the last post

Oh, and another good argument. If counter measures were that damn good, you would think the Texas examiners would have had no problem in performing them, and thus got rid of me.  If they are so non detectable, you would think that an examiner can do it better then anyone, and not get caught.  

Personally, if I had been them, I would have jumped all over it; and enjoyed being rid of a nemesis, along with having the ability to humiliate said nemesis publicly once and for all.

Yet they avoided the test, probability to engage in countermeasures and all.



hmmmmm, if countermeasures really were that good and undetectable, why wouldn't the use them?  

it is a valid question

Hey Texas examiners.... Maria, Clayton, Stuart, Andy, chime in here any time with the answers.  

Sorry for the delay all

Dan, going after numbers is doing you no good.  People who say that numbers never lie, has never taken a statistics class.  Numbers may not lie, but they sure can be manipulated.  

The best argument as to accuracy and reliability rests in the industry's behavior.  

When I first offered to use polygraph, as an answer, in the Texas dispute, the Texas Examiners, most of them, very prominent in the industry, ran for cover. All their friends and supporters scoffed at the idea.  The proof is in PP posts, and posts of examiners here on AP, and things that I have been told myself by examiners who have told me, "we don't do that", "thats not how it's done", and that is a crazy idea."  All while continuing to sell an "accurate and relabel" test to customers, but failing to use the test we seek people as, "accurate and reliable"while telling me that the test would never be applied in our own industry.

In texas, rather than take me out in two hours, they spend several years of lying, slandering, circling the wagons and fighting to keep me out of the industry and decisions that affect the Texas polygraph industry.  If they are telling the truth and I am lying, than that whole mess would have been over in 2008, and I would not even have a license anymore because of the deal that I would have given it up voluntarily if I failed. The same goes for 2009, 1010, 2014, and 2015.  AT any of these times, I have offered out a simple solution, that the polygraph examiners in Texas run and hide from, and examiners elsewhere, doesn't want to address or call texas on.

The proof is in past posts, every time I ask  Joe McCarthy wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:


Everyone either scatters, or gives vague answers that are either non responsive or total avoidance of the subject.  What they will not do, is call the Texas examiners to the plate; but they are happy to either criticize my challenge or scream chafes that I am "detrimental" to the industry.

This is actually laughable to me, as I am the poster child for someone who has consumed gallons of the polygraph koolaide, in regard to accurate and reliability.  

To this day, I am still, THE ONLY, polygraph examiner, who publicly come out, and believe in the test we sell so much, that I offered to sit for my own test, have the results public, and, if I failed, never practice polygraph ever again.  If you look at that, I don't know why I am not held out as an example of someone who is leading by example, in contrast to my detractors and competition.  

What is sad is, people still use Maria Hubbard, who either don't believe in the accuracy and reliability she holds out in her own web page, or she nows she would get caught in her lies, and it would be public according to the terms laid of the polygraph results being public.  Same goes for Andy Sheppard, Richard Wood, Stuart Ervin, Jack St John, Clayton Wood et al.  They all ran and hid from their own tests,  and encouraged others to scoff at the idea.  

Why use statistics, when you can use, documented past behavior, to back up your argument?

Now, Having said all that.  

By doing this, do you wish to be the teapot or the kettle?  because Ray has called you to the carpet with questions on more than a few occasions, in which you avoid answering too.  

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  

Also, you say you want to change the polygraph industry, but yet you only seem to want to improve it, to destroy it from within.  You are not going to change anything like that.  The industry does need change, and Texas needs a total hard reboot.  

The industry needs to reconcile with the fact that some of it's most prominent members from Texas, sent a truly bad message to the American public, by putting doubt in the confidence of some of polygraphs "best examiners" truly believe in the product they sell; or puts into doubt the content of their character as verifiers of the truth.  

If you look at who has the most confidence in polygraph, and its accuracy and reliability, in contrast with the leaders and prominent members of the Texas polygraph industry, I come out on top; every time.  Maria, right now seems to be the most afraid of this fact, if you look at her recent behavior, in front of children, when my name is even mentioned.  

Whats funny is, whenever I am contacted by maria's customers, I am always calm, independent, and unbiased; and I have even defended some of her work where I saw no fault.  

I would say I was the bigger man, but.... naaaa that would be too easy.    

You want to trash accuracy and reliability, stop using silly numbers, and outdated studies.  Use the current behavior of prominent and influential examiners, who actually hold high positions in the industry.  

They can't deny or argue the behavior of examiners, when those examiner proudly display the accuracy and reliability on their websites, but yet run when their integrity is called to the plate, or a passed or failed polygraph can benefit them.  

Just like you can't have your cake and eat it too, neither can Maria and her sycophants.   

Oh and lets point out that TAPE has not addressed or taken action on Ms. Hubbard for her clear, recent violations of TAPE bylaws; the very same bylaws they tried to hang me on.  I guess the rules only apply to the truthful, and don't apply to the dishonest and corrupt.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:


Probably because the APA's claim of 90+% accuracy is not the "real number."

As the NAS report implies, the so-called real number is only about 65%, roughly speaking -- and that's with CM-ignorant subjects.

In my opinion, the APA's claim of 90+% accuracy is marketing hyperbole.

And dan, come on, if you are going to demand straight answers from Ray, I think it is only fair that Ray get straight answers from you.   

Just being fair

My questions is.

If polygraph enjoys a 90% accuracy rate, why was my idea to let polygraph settle an issue, ongoing in the industry, ridiculed by other examiners, including the high ranking examiners in the industry and within the APA?  

I still have yet to get a straight answer every time I ask this question.  

If 90% is the real number, why did APA members in Texas run from my offer to settle the issue in Texas with polygraph?  

How does one reconcile this?

It seems the only person in Texas that believes in the accuracy in reliability of the product we sell, is me.  

One would think that would be embarrassing for the APA.  That it's members in texas either done believe in the 90% accuracy rate, or the APA has a lot of liars on it's member roles in Texas and in the Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners.

There is a big difference between making claims that the 90% accuracy rates is questionable, as compared to the actions, or lack thereof, of actual examiners who advertises that accuracy rate, but then runs when challenged.  

All Dan can do is make claims.  I can actually point to acts, by examiners, in Texas, who are APA members, have held offices, and sat on committees, who either don't believe those accuracy rates, or are scared of being exposed as liars.

Proof is in action or lack thereof.

I was willing to step forward when I was accused of lying; and people claim I am a discredit to the industry?  I am the only examiner that trusts our test enough to have put my future on the table, based on a test result. 

[knock knock]

Ray, is there not anyone home at the APA's magic Monte Carlo centrifuge facility?

I guess it's possible: Maybe they're all jockeying for position on the EyeDetect bandwagon.  

But let that go...

Ray, please explain to us lay people -- that is to say, the great unwashed -- exactly how your "data" that somehow ended up proving polygraph is 89% accurate in specific-issue applications was derived.

By any chance, was the "data" upon which you based the APA's optimistic "meta-analytic survey" claims supplied by like-minded polygraph advocate$?

If that were to be the case -- and I hope it isn't -- is it possible that such bia$ could undermine the integrity of the APA's alleged re$earch?

Please say it ain't so, Ray!

SIGN ME: Dedicated to truth -- the truth about the "test."

[cue crickets]

Ray,

Given that you are a past president and former chairman of the quasi-professional 2,800-member American Polygraph Association -- where two out of three members reportedly have only a high school diploma -- please tell us...

How did the data feed that served as the basis of your "meta-analytic survey" go down?

I have a hunch, but it's just a hunch.

A gummint operative, who just happens to be a polygraph advocate, supplied you with a pile of stuff, and said something like, "Trust me, the data is cool. There's no need to investigate any further."

Tell us, Ray... Was there any fact checking? Any oversight? Any third-party QA review?

I think not. 

In other words, I suspect you took the pile of "stuff" purely as a matter of faith.

But as Krapohl said at an APA seminar I attended in 2004, polygraph is BS (Belief System) driven.

If my suspicion is incorrect, please set the record straight.

[cue crickets]