In each of the four polygraph "tests" I have had to endure the examiner solemnly told me that they, and not the machine, were the true "lie detector."  Each examiner assured me, even before they hooked me up to the machine, that they would easily detect any lie I told them, because they were highly trained at reading body language, pupil dilation and movement, and other physical cues to detect deception.

If that is true, I would think that detecting deception in someone who fabricated their entire background story would be ridiculously easy for an experienced polygraph examiner.  Apparently it is not.

I think it is even more ridiculous that they now claim that the exam was proven to be valid because it showed no deception on the question of smoking marijuana, which the subject did not in fact smoke.  Bravo!  The examiner detected no deception on any part of the entirely fabricated story, including the fabricated part about not smoking marijuana but being accused of doing so.  How does that validate the accuracy of the polygraph?

When Leon denied having smoked marijuana while on parole, his denial was, strictly speaking, true. But Phillips and Gelb's thesis that Leon "proved nothing" is untrue. What Leon did conclusively demonstrate is that "Dr." Ed Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association, could not detect as crude a countermeasure as the tack-in-the-shoe.

So if the question, "Did you smoke marijuana while on parole?" received a "No" answer from Harmon Leon, isn't that a lie because he was never actually on parole?  So technically the "lie detector" caught nothing.  Am I missing something?

SF Weekly has published a rebuttal to Harmon Leon's article, "Bullshitting the Lie Detector." See, "The Infiltrator Who Proved Nothing!" by Lie Detector executive producer Mark Phillips with "Dr." Ed Gelb:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-06-22/news/the-infiltrator-who-proved-nothing/

It seems to me these guys could be sued or at least at a minimum be required to put a disclaimer indicating that the results of a polygraph are not infalliable.

These guys are outright lying to the public that the polygraph is a "lie detector" and can accurately detect lies....Calling folks liars when the results are "so-called" (DI) deception indicated.....HUMF

Kendall Shull is the guy I did my private polygraph with. He is a good guy but I still "failed" his test. He went through and told me in detail how the FBI testing works and this site is quite accurate in that regard. Shull was actually the head of the entire FBI polygraph division a few years back.

Marty,

I agree with your assessment.  Nothing was proven with regard to the accuracy of the polygraph.  However, it should be noted that the entire premise of Leon's appearance was a fabrication.  A fabrication left in the dark until exposed by its author.  It shows that those involved with the show are apparently very gullible.  They bit the bait and the reporter did what he intended, not fool the poly, but fool the show with his story.

It's worth pointing out that Leon did everything possible after hoaxing his way onto the show to suggest he was lying. He was clearly hoping to be called a liar about the one thing he was truthful on. However, he was accurately called truthful on the relevant question. While it's a very funny story, it does nothing to show the poly as unreliable and even suggests his social engineering worked to get on the show but failed to achieve a false polygraph.

[added] It needs to be pointed out that Leon did use CMs, the rather crude "tack in the shoe." So the show failed to detect his use of CM's to assure a true negative. Oddly, one gets the impression the thrust of Leon's activities was to get on the show - and get it aired. Perhaps he should have used the "tack" on the relevant Q. lol.

marty

Boy, "Dr. Gelb" has been revealed as an even bigger hoax.

I hope Mr. Leon had a good time on the money these pillars of society threw at him.

Hey Brandon, I am still laughing too. This is just to good to be true.


Fred F.

This is TOO FUNNY...can someone please call the paramedics to help me up from the floor.  Hopefully the folks at Lie Detector, including the "Dr." are a bit red-faced.

SF Weekly has published a highly entertaining article by Harmon Leon, who infiltrated the show masquerading as a parolee named Hank who was wrongly accused by his parole officer of having used drugs. See, "Bullshitting the Lie Detector":

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-05-25/news/bullshitting-the-lie-detector/

TheNoLieGuy4U writes, among other things:

Quote:


Robert Smitty has not contacted AntiPolygraph.org.

Quote:


Had you bothered to read or view the WBIR television news story to which I provided links before setting fingers to keyboard, you would know that "[Kendall] Shull asked Smitty whether he was paid for his kidney and if he broke the law."

Quote:


Although I did not view the episode of "Lie Detector" in which Mr. Smitty appeared, it seems, based on press accounts, that the relevant questions asked by both Gelb and Shull concerned the question of whether Smitty received more money than the law allows for his organ donation.

As for your personal attack on me, I don't think I will dignify it with a response except for to clarify that I have not yet received a doctoral degree, nor have I ever claimed to have done so.  Any who are curious about the experience that led me to speak publicly on polygraph issues may review my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."

Quote:


Why is it that every polygraph supporter has to demean those who they target with insults which insinuate the child-like nature of the target with little pet names?  Childish itself.

Countermeasures?  Would these be the same countermeasures which polygraph artists claim are ineffective and easily detected?  With someone as knowledgable as "Dr." Gelb and Mr. Shull (former head of polygraph for the FBI to correct you) wouldn't countermeasures be useless?  What with all of their experience and knowledge.  You may fail to recognize that "Dr." Gelb's "test" was administerd in front of a national television audience.  With that in mind, Mr. Shull certainly would have been able to pose questions relevant to Mr. Smitty's first polygraph.  With his reputation and all why would he do otherwise?  Your argument provides argument.  Rather hastily thought out.

Your assualt on Mr. Maschke is both ignorant and laughable.  He speaks Arabic and resides over seas.  He must be a terrorist or at minimum support terrorist activity.  Do you speak Spanish.  If so I am sure that you illegally provide support and refuge for illegal aliens on a daily basis.  See what I am getting at?  Rather ignorant and stupid isn't it?

According to your logic we Americans need to pay homage to the Queen.  Those damn patriots that caused change and the birth of a nation (my nation, your nation and yes, Mr. Maschke's nation) were not patriots at all, but rather they were terrorists.

Your inflammatory remarks are unncessary.  Hold your tongue if you have only degradation and stupidity on its tip.

By Your own time line:

1.  Kidney Boy Smitty donates organ

2.  The act falls into question given Smitty's criminal past.

3.  Smitty takes a Computer Polygraph with Dr. Ed Gelb and he "Subjectively", and the computer scoring algorithms "Objectively" determine Deception indicated.

4.  Smitty turns to AntiPolygraph.org for Pitty, and presumeably to read how to beat such a test as posted on your home page.

5.  Smitty later takes a test with a retired FBI former Examiner (We Still Don't Know The Questions there), and he is told he passed / truthful.   

6.  You now try to pit Gelb against Shull in that one must be right and one must be wrong.  This presumes that exact same questions were asked by both.  My guess is they were not !  In either case, Smitty made new revelations on the show indicative that he was withholding information from his original claims, and therefore validated his own test result as deceptive with Gelb.   

7.  Smitty's claim to have now passed a test is suspect given these admissions, and his very mindset to attempt countermeasures.   

8.  You George, remain obsessed about this issue when clearly better men (& women) than you have worked very hard for their respective government agencies in this field, and they produce results.  Their contributions to our country far outweigh anything you have ever done, but I grant you there was a time when you were an assett to this country; and you were given awards you then earned.  What you are now is best described as a Fifth colum gatekeeper for the dark side, the patron Saint of pedophiles, and that Judas Escariot of the Intelligence community.  It is a shame that a man with a PhD in Middle Eastern Languages has missed the boat on the war on terrorism where he could have done some good.  I doubt even without the polygraph that you could now meet security criteria to serve in any capacity given your choice to "work" in socialist Holland, which like France is losing it's idenity to Islamic Immigration there.  It's my opinion that as a fifth colum assisting both "Foreign & Domestic" enemies of the United States, You have broken your oath to Our constitution you swore when as an Army Intel Officer.  The U.S. Government, your  former chain of command, declares that the Polygraph technology is "Protected" as a "Means" of intelligence gathering.  Your attempts make you suspect as to where your loyalties are in my mind and many other readers here.   

     One thing more, Please remain in your little world of Academia with middle eastern languages in Holland.  Please don't die in some mysterious way as to create conspiracy types thinking the U.S. Government did you in all because of the polygraph.  There are other tracings in life that matter you know beyond computer polygraph graphics; such as what we write about, whom we harm with it, and where it all leads.  Your patronage to those who would do our nation harm domestically and internationally all based on your obsession that the polygraph stalled or ruined your life as an Applicant for jobs is crazy.  If anyone you knew acted out this way on any other subject, it would certainly  be hard for you not to reach the same conclusion.   

One does not need a polygraph, EEG, or any other measuring device to see that you are a head case obsessed with this.  One might conclude that your behavior is suggestive of a personality that would not have been well suited for the very work for which you have applied, as some of us have to actually get things done, rather than just Hypostulate and Bitch.  You offer no substitutes for My (No Longer Yours) government to achieve its goals; a decision it is wise enough to make for itself without you.
 

TheNoLieGuy4U@Earthlink.net   8)

Quote:


Did you take the time to review the information via the links provided?  If you had you would have been able to figure out that the "test" by Mr. Gelb was administered prior to the one by Mr. Shull.  You are saying that Mr. Smitty was outgunned by Mr. Gelb, so was Mr. Shull outgunned by Mr. Smitty?  Further proof of the uselessness of deception detection by polygraph:  two examiners and two very different results.

I suppose that you will now discredit Mr. Shull because his findings were in opposition to Mr. Gelb's findings.  That is laughable since they should both be discredited.  When next you feel the need to offer your opinion perhaps you should review the readily available information.

Enlighten us, which examiner came to the correct conclusion:  the former FBI top poly artist or the past president of the APA?  Well?    

Hi,

I noticed that the unsavvy Mr. Smitty in fact confessed to the Host Ms. Watts that he in fact had been in the market to sell his kidney on the internet !  Further, that she extracted from him that he might have negotiated a price with the eventual recipient among the others, but that he was just now sure.  That is far and away different from his original story / denial which he first told.  The Truth is always in the details !  When they change their story they are doing damage control.   

In regard to his claim of having passed a prior test; What were the questions ?  One might very well pass such a test if the actual topic / crime is avoided in the test itself.  I would say Mr. Smitty from my limited observation is still the same slick little hustler that his criminal past indicates, and that he thought he could "Beat The Test".  No surprise he was outgunned by Dr. Ed Gelb.   

TheNoLieGuy4U

Robert Smitty, who appeared on the premiere of "Lie Detector" and was accused of deception by Ed Gelb regarding whether he was paid for a kidney that he donated to a stranger he met over the Internet, has passed a polygraph "test" administered by Kendall Shull, the former head of the FBI's polygraph unit. Shull told WBIR Channel 10 News in Knoxville, Tennessee, "I feel like with my background, qualifications, education and so forth it's certainly 95% to 97% accurate." How accurate then was the "test" administered by Ed Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association?

The story is available in Windows Media Player format from the WBIR website here:

http://www.wbir.com/webclix/news_playlist.asp?clip=031505_news_kidney.wmv&sponso...

A text version of the story is available here:

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=24104

It should be noted that it was Kendall ("Ken") Shull who was responsible for the FBI's re-interpretation of Los Alamos scientist Dr. Wen Ho Lee's Department of Energy-administered polygraph examination, which three DOE examiners agreed he had passed, to "inconclusive, if not deceptive." For discussion, see Was Wen Ho Lee's FBI polygraph "test" rigged?

On Tuesday, 8 March 2005, the Paxson Communications Corporation's PAX TV network will premiere "Lie Detector," hosted by Rolonda Watts and featuring celebrity polygraph operator "Dr." Ed Gelb, who will administer polygraph "tests" to the show's guests:

http://www.paxtv.com/shows/liedet/

The show also has a dedicated website here:

http://www.liedetector.tv

Ed Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association, has previously been exposed as a phony Ph.D.:

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