William McCallister is out of prison.

He is now giving Converus EyeDetect lie detector tests from his wife's, Helga LaPollo's mobile office van.

They are operating under the name:

FloridaTruthVerification.com

Mary Price is not a real person. Her character was created by Michael Martin, owner of the poly test org, Global Polygraph Network website.
Antipolygraph.org does very well with organic search engine queries related to polygraph and lie detection. Better than most polygraph websites.
Attacking the characters of these two Examiners, Mike and Denny, who have offices in Tampa and Orlando, and directing people to go to the Global Polygraph network website,  is business marketing and advertising.
Both Mike Allwatt and Denny Connor do not test minors under the age of 16. 
After William McCallister, the retired Polk County Sheriff who was arrested for drugging women during a polygraph, in his Winter Haven office,  was removed from the Global Polygraph Network, Michael Martin lost revenue from the central Florida area. Michael Martin received complaints for years about William McCallister, but ignored them, and kept McCallister, who had previous criminal activity including credit card fraud and kidnapping intoxicated tourists from the Orlando area, active on the Global Polygraph Network, for years before he went to prison. William McCallister is back out of prison, and now selling EyeDetect tests from his wife, Helga LaPollo's mercedes sprinter mobile van. Converus, the makers of EyeDetect lie detector tests says they license EyeDetect to Helga, and not William, so its not their problem. The Polk County Sheriffs probation dept. does not care.
The Global Polygraph Network is a referrel service, that posts Examiner Info, without releasing the Examiners name, so the consumer is not able to talk to the Examiner before meeting with him. The post hundreds of Examiners that state their service includes the testing of 12 year old children.

Honest Joe,

Do you have any other questions for me?

If so, speak up. 

Now is the time.

The American Polygraph Association elections are mere days away...

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jun 10^th, 2017 at 2:24am:



Honest Joe, during those 15 years the APA claimed 98% polygraph "test" accuracy -- 10 of those years after the devastating NAS report citing polygraph's lack of scientific underpinnings, as well as the stern warnings from NAS about the marginal research submitted by indu$try sources -- did the APA lie?

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jun 10^th, 2017 at 2:13am:


Because a.) the APA election is but nine days away; b.) a large part of the polygraph world is following this forum; and c.) I need every single APA member vote that I can get.

"So tell me again how APA politics doesn't affect me?  Go ahead, explain it to me."

The APA's political processes -- such as individual elections and committee machinations -- don't affect you. But yes, some aggregate (politburo-wide) APA political decisions will affect you only to the extent you have already identified -- namely, standards and model policies. 

For example, should a bill of rights ultimately become APA "law", assuming you adhere to the bill of rights protocol, you will lose a significant amount of business, as would-be subjects will wisely opt out of the "test." 

As for me lying about my retirement, get real. It was tactical manipulation --  similar to what "forensic psycho-physiologists" routinely do to their clueless clients. Politicians do it all the time. Hillary often denied she was running for president in the run-up to the 2016 primaries.   

Oh and you didn't engineer anything, YOU LIED.   

Not a good way to start a campaign, and again, not a good characteristic.  Be a man, come at someone head on.  Fight a fight with honor.  A wise man once told me, "A tainted win is only the start of a failure"

If there are questions I have asked, which you have successfully avoided CLEARLY answering here, on this string in the past, why should I expect anything different in the future?

answer that question, there is where we will start

and I am not meddling

While I have no skin in the game, in a member sense of the word, I do have skin in it in the sense of, the APA sets the standards all polygraph examiners eventually will have to follow, as all associations adopt APA standards.

So tell me again how APA politics doesn't affect me?  Go ahead, explain it to me.

You'll avoid that one too, as you avoided the question above.

Wow you really hate being called to the plate don't you.

Moreover if I was "obsessed" I'd be here every day.  AP has seen me highly motivated before.   

Fact is, I think your politics of destruction and bully pulpit are dangerous and, ugh, I hate to say this, the industry is better off without the totalitarianism you are planing.   

Your times as president will be a disaster, and I explain why in the episode linked.  Nothing will get done.  Your "bully pulpit" is useless without the membership vote, which you will have a difficult time with on up and down vote, and the board of directors.   

In the end, you will do more harm than good, and I'm not willing to live with your bad decisions and despotic temperament dictating polygraph policy.

I have been the most outspoken person against the polygraph establishment, long before you got on the band wagon.  You have gone extreme to the left, and I can't and won't go there. Having said that, I know it is up to the members in June.  If there is a way I can give another venue to make an informed decision, I will.   

What I find interesting is you won't go anywhere you can't control.  This makes me very suspicious of your intent or ulterior motives.

Personally, I am starting to think if the rule that was proposed about hold another office before you can run for president, was a good thing.  Might benefit them to revisit that.   

Also, for the record, I have been invited to join, I make the choice not to do so, at this point in time.  Frankly, at this point, it doesn't benefit me.  It would be wasted money.   

You are asking people to vote for you, who have never even loped you in the eye, or shook your hand.  You're asking them to vote for someone that doesn't respect them enough to do just that.  Sorry, maybe we just had more honor coming up where I'm from, but if you wanted someone to trust you, you at least had the respect to looking them in the eye and ask for support.

In the end, over the past couple of years, I have come to be very suspicious of your motives, partly, because you avoid any personal interaction and your unwillingness to look people in the eye; thats not an admirable characteristic.   

Anyway, I am overburdening you with the two questions on this post alone.  It take a lot to dance around questions..... I get it.

Honest Joe, in the 2014 APA elections, I received 15% of the votes for the office of president elect.

In the 2015 race for the same APA office, after an email outreach campaign initiative, I received 28% of the votes cast.

Last year, I received 25% of the APA member votes cast for president elect -- without doing any email campaigning.

Given that my platform has been consistent since 2014, I think it's safe to say that, today, one in four of the APA members who comprise the active electorate supports me -- and I have never even been to a national seminar.

This is significant because it shows an alarming schism within the "dedicated to truth" APA: The realists such as myself are gaining on the "forensic psycho-physiologist" pretenders.

In my opinion, this paradigm shift can be attributed to my rational arguments, coupled with the power of social media.

Let's review my simple, three-point platform:


1. A bill of rights –- similar to those found in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test subjects, to elevate informed consent and avoid potential harms
 
2. Transparent research, including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series, designed to reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose variations in examiner competence
 
3. Equality for all APA members regarding access to political and educational opportunities, thereby reducing the inequities of a de facto caste society

Sounds reasonable to me -- and evidently to many other active APA members

But let's look at what is really driving this...

Polygraph has no proven scientific basis, and there is no universal lie response. Successful application of the polygraph technique is driven by expertise, not by any scientific formula,  dumbed-down paint-by-numbers cookie-cutter "test" method, or cockamamie 'model policy." 

The power of polygraph -- at least for those who are ignorant of how the "test" works -- lies in its effect as an interrogation prop. 

Polygraph is pseudoscience, plain and simple. And because of that, countless thousands (maybe millions) of individuals have been victimized over the decades. That's just plain wrong.

Indeed, the liebox is a very effective electronic rubber hose, or as Doug Williams has called it for decades, a psychological billy club.

You talk about responsibility. Indeed, it's time for cultural change within the APA -- one that's based in reality, not tortured theories about probabilistics.

Now that I've successfully engineered a three-way race, my chance of winning the office of APA president elect is just as good as that of my opponents. 

I am not out to destroy polygraph, but to reform it. However, some organizational deconstruction will be necessary. My supporters know that.

Your obsession with my APA candidacy for president elect seems most odd. You are not even a member of the APA, yet you devote much time and energy to meddling in the APA political process. Should you ever decide to join the APA, I suspect that, based on your YouTube videos alone, your application would be summarily denied by APA authorities.

Let me be clear: I will not participate in your radio program, because you have demonstrated an agenda against me and my politics.

But, I will answer your questions publicly on this forum -- even the ones you say I've "dodged" over the years.

So bring on the questions, or just stop meddling.

Caca_Dau wrote on Jun 9^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:


That is your God given American right.   

I do see humor is lost on you though

Dan, take some responsibility.  I got vulgar and hostile in direct response to your hostility to me as an examiner.  Wow, you are like the other examiners in Texas.  You can dish it out, but ya can't take it.

I promised you I would give you your chance, I promised you I'd be unbiased.

Personally, I think you are a destructive force in the industry, with no intent to make the industry better, or even more honest. All you want is destruction    

I do think you are a talker, and that is all you have is talk.  You say one thing and do another, you lack consistency, realistic direction, and humility.  

Lastly, you haven't EARNED any right, other than being a member of the APA, to sit in the President's seat.  You haven't held any other office; you lack ant experience in the administration of an organization like this; other than your "100% accurate and reliable study" you have contributed nothing to industry; and with that, you have contributed nothing in regard to the betterment of the industry. All you want to do is kick everyone down, without offering to pick anyone up.  Where I come from, I was taught, never kick anyone down, without offering to pick them up to be better for the ass whooping.

You lack the ability to admit when you're wrong, or even look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're being unreasonable.  Your words reflect someone that has little to no willingness to treat others on the level, and someone who is incapable of being a man who squares his actions.  

In my eyes, you are not better than the examiners you hate, and the examiners, I am battling.  Over time, I have started to realize, you are little more than a negative image of the same picture, and you have done little to dissuade that opinion.

Lastly, as you have so eloquently pointed out last year, you didn't want my "endorsement."  Which is good, because I think anyone who bases their vote on an endorsement is a brainless drone. Fact is, what difference does it make if I want you to win or not?  If given the choice, I'm not sure the other two would be any better.  In the end, no matter who gets in, I'm still crappity smacked.

If the establishment gets in, I am still at the mercy of TAPE; and moreover, I'm without anyone to call their unethical acts to the carpet.  I am totally convinced, you would leave me hanging too, and then add the rainbow sprinkles of threatening my livelihood, as well as the livelihood of other small, good examiners. People who do their jobs well, and with respect to examinees.

Fair, independent, and unbiased.

You winning doesn't benefit me even a tenth of a precent.  

Having said that, I don't think the other two guys winning benefits me either.  I believe this makes me the most impartial person to do this. 

To be fair, at least you are honest about wanting to destroy the industry.  The rest of the establishment, knows the status quo will eventually destroy the industry; but they are either in denial, or they don't care that the next generation will be left holding the deed to the house with a damaged foundation, for us to fix their greed and mistakes.  

My only interest, is people making a fair decision, based on what they hear, to make an informed decision, in regard to who will do the least damage.

I am going to continue with the broadcasts, if you want no part in it, I will go off what you have made abundantly clear here.  You know the call in number, but you'll answer my questions, or you will be gone.  I would treat the other two in the same way.  

I will not allow you to avoid the questions or twist my questions in a way that your answers are in the form of questions to me.  Frankly, there are still a lot of questions, on past posts, on this thread, you have successfully avoided answering.  

Here is a good question.  See if you can answer it without making me the bad guy.

If there are questions I have asked, which you have successfully avoided CLEARLY answering here, on this string in the past, why should I expect anything different in the future?

You'll dodge that one too, or make it somehow into questions for me.  

WAKE UP CALL.  I'M NOT THE ONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE

If I was, you wouldn't stand a chance.

I, at least want to fix the problems in the industry; and have ideas where the solutions would benefit ALL involved, including examinees.  

That is the difference between you and I.  I believe if you complain about something, you better have a solution in mind.  While I believe increased oversight and regulation are needed, I do not believe dismantling the industry is warranted at this point.

I'll post links, in advance to future broadcasts.  My suggestion is, man up

In regard to you feeling that you are net given a far chance, come down here and live a couple months of my life down here.  Then, and only then, will you know how it truly feels to have the cards stacked against you.

If any of my detractors gave me a chance to lay out my case, in a forum where people would actually listen, I'd face everyone of them, eye to eye.  You run, hide, and cry like a snowflake.  I wish that these assholes in Texas would given me half the opportunity I offer you.   

This is the thing that annoys me the most about you, you lack the ability to turn adversity into strength.  I have no respect for someone who can't see and act on that kind of an opportunity; especially when it is being handed to you.

  

 

Actually Joe I believe that deciphering chicken bones, reading tea leaves, and tarot cards are more accurate than polygraph tests.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jun 8^th, 2017 at 7:11pm:


Honest Joe -- or should I say "Amy Baker" -- that's a Freudian slip if ever there was one.

You have made clear your desire to see me lose in my bid for APA president elect. Further, you have repeatedly been vulgar, hostile and abusive toward me on this forum.

So, thanks for the offer to get my message out on your little radio show -- but I'll pass. Had you been fair, civil and unbiased all along, I'd probably be interested. But you weren't, so I'm not.

Once again, I am happy to answer your questions (or anyone else's) publicly on this forum. But there's no way I'll submit to a so-called debate with such a flagrantly prejudiced "moderator."

Please accept my condolences on the loss of your family member. 

Caca_Dau wrote on Jun 8^th, 2017 at 11:23pm:


Actually, I like to use the whole chicken.  The blood sacrifice make it more accurate.

Hey if we are devolving into silly analogy, I'm gong to have fun with it.

Having said that, first you have to hypnotize the chicken, in my method

I love seeing these bulletin board shoot outs.  It's like arguing how the chicken bones should be read after they hit the floor...

Ex Member wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 12:07am:



Tell you what, If I can get everyone on board, If a public berate is allowed, two to four questions, relevant to APA administration will be taken.  Chosen at random.

If I can get everyone on board with this.  right now getting dan on board, by itself has been impossible, even last year.

He talks a good game, but when it comes to backing his talk up, I seem to be the only examiner who has the sand to back up what I say, and have been doing it here long before Dan came around

I am done asking and answering questions of you here, for now.   

I will be hitting the air again soon, and You can have your time.  I will be fair and let you get your message out so long as you are not slanderous and keep it to facts, and keep the ad hominem argument to a min.

For now I am bogged down with two things

1, I am busy with another examiner's screw up's here in Texas, as per usual.  I hate it when examiners don't follow APA or JPCOT guidelines, and in this case, actually break TDLR law.   

After addressing that, I have a family death I have to attend to back home.  SO if you have an issue with my integrity, I will be more than happy to address the issue face to face, if you'd like, time permitting.   

I am on here right now, so I can make clear that I am not ignoring anyone, just addressing some serious stuff right now and this is low on the priority list.   

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 12:34am:


Much as is the BI, at agencies which also employ the  polygraph!

Ark, all of this is pure speculation.

It's fun, but inconsequential.

Here's the reality:

APA elections are like those for members of the high school student council.

It's a popularity contest.

They should be the ones who submit the questions. Also, those who say the polygraph exonerated them or helped them in some way should pose their own. The moderator should be neutral, otherwise it will just be an APA roast.

Ark, I disagree.

The moderator should be a proven victim of a false-positive polygraph "test" result.

I can just imagine the rhetorical tap dancing that would ensue...

An appropriate moderator would be someone with no knowledge of the polygraph and who has never visited this forum.

Honest Joe, a couple of days ago I expressed keen interest in participating in a three-way debate -- which you could moderate -- with my opponents for APA president-elect, Steve Duncan and John Palmatier.

Since that time you have made it clear that you want me to lose the election, in large part because, according to you, my purpose is to destroy polygraph -- which is your livelihood.

Given your stated prejudice against me, I see no advantage in subjecting myself to an on-air venue with a biased host/moderator -- especially one who has openly displayed such sharp and vulgar hostility as you have.

But, I will gladly answer your questions -- or anyone else's, for that matter -- here on AP.

not going to be bullied by the likes of you.  this is what YOU wanted.  You requested this.  I would stay up and hit the link Danny boy

Honest Joe, tell you what...

I'll give you another 24 hours.

Post your questions here, on AP.

Again, I will respond only in writing.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/maxprovocateur/2017/06/03/oh-danny-boy-the-pipes-th...


12 midnight tonight


I will not be taking calls for this session, and it will mainly be meant as a blog to prep for a long process of getting Dan and the other APA Candidates to come on and answer some questions about why they feel the APA voters should trust them.

Having said that, in this episode I will mainly be addressing Dan, and his apparent need to control the narrative and be a bully.

I really do hope all members of the polygraph community listen, and get my take on this whole thing, in a deeper and more personal level than the written word.  I'll also leave the episode on line so it can be podcast later.