Scheduled to take a pre-employment poly with Intercept, Inc. in Los Angeles (http://www.polygraphexpert.com/index.html - how do you like that URL?), run by Ed Gelb himself.

Anyone been to this location and have any stories? What method do they use? (I'd suspect the Backster method.) Does Gelb do the tests himself, or does someone else? What's the office like--nice or shabby? How's the parking? I'll be sure to tell my story after I take the test.

For some interesting stuff on Gelb, see http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/

I have never been in Ed Gelb's polygraph suite, but considering his address (4201 Wilshire), my guess is that it ain't shabby. David Lykken notes in the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood that when he visited Gelb in 1980, he "lived up in the Hollywood hills whence he commuted to his office in his new Jaguar roadster."

The second link you provided notes:

Quote:

Supposedly Gelb's resume states that he received his doctorate degree from LaSalle University in Louisiana.  That would be a real problem, because LaSalle was found to be nothing but a mail-order diploma mill.  LaSalle's office was investigated and raided by the FBI, and T homas Kirk, LaSalle's owner and founder, was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in federal prison.  Kirk earned millions of dollars from people looking to obtain fraudulent college degrees at a discount rate with little or no actual course work required. Calls to Gelb's office by people trying to verify his education were not returned, and one internet sleuth even went as far as to check the master registry of Ph.D. dissertations and could find no information on a doctorate thesis authored by Edward Gelb. Should "Doctor" Gelb really be addressed as "Dr. Bogus"?  Is the man who claims to be the master at detecting the deception of others really  a master of public and profession deception himself?  Perhaps when Ed Gelb hears about this web page he will contact us and provide proof of his educational background so we can publish the truth here.

It would be quite a scandal if it turned out that a past president of the American Polygraph Association got his degree from a mail-order diploma mill. Can anyone verify this?

wrote on Jan 17^th, 2003 at 9:41am:

I have never been in Ed Gelb's polygraph suite, but considering his address (4201 Wilshire), my guess is that it ain't shabby. David Lykken notes in the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood that when he visited Gelb in 1980, he "lived up in the Hollywood hills whence he commuted to his office in his new Jaguar roadster." The second link you provided notes: It would be quite a scandal if it turned out that a past president of the American Polygraph Association got his degree from a mail-order diploma mill. Can anyone verify this?

If Dr. Gelb has testified at trial as an expert witness then certainly his CV is a matter of public record.

A little something I found at http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:A4uFHeqP6LwC:www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/9288/Investigation/Old-Updates.doc+lasalle+%22edward+gelb+&hl=en&i
e=UTF-8


Quote:

Dr. Gelb is one of the foremost polygraph examiners in the country, possibly even the world. He's more than just an expert in polygraph examinations. Some of his qualifications include:     Bachelor's degree in Political Science, U.C.L.A....     Master's degree in Psychology, LaSalle University...     Doctorate in Psychology, LaSalle University...     He is the past President, Executive Director and Chairman of the Board of the American Polygraph Association...     He was a detective and lieutenant with the Los Angeles Police Department...     He is a current Adjunct Professor of Psychology at LaSalle University. Dr. Gelb utilizes the state-of-the-art computerized Axciton to conduct forensic polygraph examinations. In addition to the above qualifications, Dr. Gelb has conducted over 30,000 polygraph examinations since 1969, with specific criminal incident examinations conducted for Fortune 500 companies, criminal defense attorneys, and governmental agencies, and 400 polygraph examinations conducted for the Los Angeles Superior Court to effect settlement of two class action suits. Dr. Gelb is one of the few experts whose testimony is accepted by the Los Angeles Police Commission. He is presently conducting examinations for at least 100 defense attorneys as well as District Attorney offices and police agencies.

The LaSalle University that conferred a doctoral degree on Ed Gelb is not necessarily the diploma mill created by convicted felon Thomas James Kirk (aka Thomas McPherson). There is also a LaSalle University in Philadelphia that is affiliated with the Catholic church and has a doctoral program in clinical psychology.

Sadly, LaSalle University's Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology was only created several years ago, with the first PhD's of any kind at LaSalle being awarded last year.

There are no other Doctoral programs at LaSalle.

Dave

wrote on Jan 18^th, 2003 at 12:41am:

Sadly, LaSalle University's Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology was only created several years ago, with the first PhD's of any kind at Lasalle being awarded last year. There are no other Doctoral programs at LaSalle. Dave

Although I'm sure there are polygraphers with genuine degrees out there, this guy was a president of the APA and highly acclaimed as "more than a world-class polygraph expert".  I have to admit, things aren't looking too good for the polygraph community these days.

My last NSA polygrapher implied that he had a Master's degree in psychology (though he didn't say from where, and he didn't say he had actually obtained the degree -- only that he had been "working on his degree" at one time).  

In my undergraduate psychology work, I learned things that specifically called into question ideas upon which the polygraph supposedly depends.  I am therefore very suspicious of any claims of genuine, respectable psychology backgrounds on the part of polygraphers.  This revelation about "Dr." Gelb, sadly, doesn't surprise me in the least.

Skeptic

Quote:

The LaSalle University that conferred a doctoral degree on Ed Gelb is not necessarily the diploma mill created by convicted felon Thomas James Kirk (aka Thomas McPherson). There is also a LaSalle University in Philadelphia that is affiliated with the Catholic church and has a doctoral program in clinical psychology.

If I'm lucky enough to see a diploma, and the state happens to be Louisiana, that will go a long way toward easing my mind...

He isn't listed as an Adjunct Professor at the LaSalle University noted above.... anyone care to lay odds that his Masters was 'earned' at the Diplomas-r-Us as well?

Quote:

Dr. Gelb has conducted over 30,000 polygraph examinations since 1969, with specific criminal incident examinations conducted for Fortune 500 companies, criminal defense attorneys, and governmental agencies, and 400 polygraph examinations conducted for the Los Angeles Superior Court to effect settlement of two class action suits.

“Dr” Gelb is a super man, 30,000 exams since 1969.  Hum, 33 yrs, 52 weeks in a year, 365 days in a year, factor out the weekends (104 days), that leaves (give or take) 261 days a year to work.  But wait… take out two weeks of vacation, just the work days (10) = 251.  Now lets take out say 6 holidays = 245 day at work per year (roughly)

So lets do some math, 30,000 career exams divided by 33 years = 909.09 polygraph exams a year.  909.09 exams a year divided by 245 work days a year = 3.71 polygraph exams a day (give or take).

This guy is a true work-coholic!   ???

Dear Nobody,

Food for thought:

Quote:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7615/burke.html This is not the first time Ed Gelb has been in the spotlight. He was called in after Travis Walton claimed he was abducted by space aliens and kept for five days aboard their spaceship before being returned to Earth. There were five friends with him that claim that they saw Travis as he was being beamed aboard an alien craft. Ed Gelb gave polygraphs to each of the five witnesses and gave them a clean bill of health. He stated that each of the tests demonstrated that each witness was being conclusively "truthful." Gelb, then declared that the statistical odds of five people "beating the machine" was about one in a million. Later, polygraph expert John J. McCarthy gave Travis Walton a polygraph examination and determined that Travis was deceptive with his responses. This is not the only time that Ed Gelb has verified an alien abduction. He had a TV show called "lie detector" with co-host F. Lee Bailey in which he had the opportunity to test Betty Hill. Betty and Barney Hill are the famous couple that claim to have been abducted by space aliens. They say that they were given a physical examination by these aliens while aboard the space ship. After a polygraph examination by Gelb, Betty Hill was declared to have given truthful responses to Gelb's questions.

I'm not sure a 100 degrees on the wall would make me feel good with this guy!

Gotta add my pennies to this one.  Every time I hear Mr. Gelb touted as the foremost expert on polygraph I cringe.  Here is a guy who got on national TV with The former LA prosecutor, Ms Clark, and polygraphed Capt. Lou Albano to determine if professional wrestling was real.  Personally I think he is an embarrassment to polygraph at any level, regardless of his highly touted credentials and background.

By the way, he did get the call right on the wrestling issue, it's fake, but he couldn't get the Capt. to confess!

Batman  

Batman,

Do you know what the truth is regarding the matter of Gelb's academic credentials?  I guess you have pretty much indicated what your opinion of him is.  That being the case, why do you suppose he was elected by your community (polygraph) as president of the American Polygraph Association (if you belong and know)?

I can not speak to Mr. Gelb's academic credentials.  I would venture to say he would be the best source for that information.

As for why he was elected as president of the APA by "my community", I can only offer that Bill Clinton was elected president of the US by "my community" (in a larger sense), and I didn't agree with that one either.  You would have to poll the APA members who voted in that particular election to get an accurate accounting as to why Mr. Gelb was elected president.

Batman

Batman,

What you say is true.  It is also accurate to say that whatever you believe Bill Clinton's shortcomings to be/have been, I suspect that you would not include phony academic degrees and a general lack of education.  I believe, amongst other things, we can agree he was in fact a Rhode's Scholar.

Anonymous,

We could debate Clinton from now till dooms day.  Even though his degrees were real, his transgressions were far worse than any that Mr. Gelb may have committed in the arena of polygraph.  Even though I do not hold Mr. Gelb in very high esteem as it pertains to polygraph, he would have to tumble pretty far down the totum to reach Mr. Clinton's lowly position.

Batman

Batman wrote on Jan 20^th, 2003 at 9:54pm:

Anonymous, We could debate Clinton from now till dooms day.  Even though his degrees were real, his transgressions were far worse than any that Mr. Gelb may have committed in the arena of polygraph.  Even though I do not hold Mr. Gelb in very high esteem as it pertains to polygraph, he would have to tumble pretty far down the totum to reach Mr. Clinton's lowly position.

I had no idea you were such a moral hardliner, Batman.  In my experience most people believe consensual affairs between adults, while certainly wrong, don't rise to the level of outright fraud.

BTW -- I'm glad you finally registered on the site.  You'd likely be a "very senior user" by now, if all your posts were counted :)

Now if we can just get "Anonymous" to register...

Skeptic

Batman,

The big difference is that it can be (and was) argued that former President's Clinton's well known failings had little to do with his job performance (longest peace time economic expansion in history, 300 plus per cent growth in the stock market during the time he was in office, budget deficits becoming surpluses, etc).  The same is not true and can not be said for one who would qualify himself in expert testimony regarding his life's profession with phony academic degrees.  That is why I believe determining the truth about the matter is important.

Anonymous,

I know this site is not really one for political debate, however it does, in a somewhat perverse way, center around discussions pertaining to truth and deceit; so I guess the topic of Bill Clinton does, in a way, fit right in.

I guess I can only ask that if a person is willing to accept the supposed good that occurred under Clinton's watch (economic growth, which in reality was a result of initiatives implemented years before) along with his utter contempt for the truth, then why would that same person be so against polygraph?  Even though it has its weaknesses, some good is derived from its use.  The "take the good with the bad" principle applies in both cases.  

Clinton lived his lies on a daily basis; they were and are in fact a matter of public record.  He betrayed the trust of the American Public, humiliated those closest to him, and displayed an utter disrespect for the very office he strove so hard to hold.

On the other hand, Ed Gelb's academic credentials are still open to debate.  I don't believe anyone has actually said, definitively, that his academic degrees are phony.

I guess, even if Mr. Gelb's degrees were phony, and if he has other failings, what does it matter, as long as it doesn't impact his job performance.  I suppose we can refer to this as "The Clinton Standard".  One can be a first class liar, cheat, and thief, but as long as the job gets done, well so be it.  Maybe it's OK to be these things, and still receive acceptance, if it's done on a more grand scale or larger stage.  

Let's kick the Ed Gelbs' around, but give a pass to the Bill Clintons'.  

Batman

Batman,

I would think the polygraph community would be the last corporate body to criticize Bill Clinton for deceit.  I don't know how many lies or how frequently he told them, but I think we can rest assured that he did not tell as many as a polygraph examiner who lies every times he gives a CQT examination.

Batman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2003 at 11:55pm:

Anonymous, I know this site is not really one for political debate, however it does, in a somewhat perverse way, center around discussions pertaining to truth and deceit; so I guess the topic of Bill Clinton does, in a way, fit right in. I guess I can only ask that if a person is willing to accept the supposed good that occurred under Clinton's watch (economic growth, which in reality was a result of initiatives implemented years before) along with his utter contempt for the truth, then why would that same person be so against polygraph?  Even though it has its weaknesses, some good is derived from its use.  The "take the good with the bad" principle applies in both cases.

It probably is a very good thing that this isn't a political discussion forum, Batman.  If you think I'm ruthless with polygraphers, you should see how I am with dittoheads and freepers ;)

Regardless of what one thinks about Clinton (or Dubya, for that matter), for whatever real or imagined reason, the fact that someone worse than Gelb can be found is certainly beyond dispute.  It is also irrelevant to whether a man who has forged academic credentials should be touted as "beyond expert" in polygraph administration, or whether such a snake-oil salesman, as someone who was elected to serve as APA president, reflects poorly on the APA and the polygraph profession (or worse, is typical of both).

Skeptic

I called Dr. Gelb's office at (323) 932-0200 to inquire about his credentials, mentioning my association with AntiPolygraph.org and mentioning this message thread. Dr. Gelb was not available, but I left my home phone number and e-mail address with his office assistant, who said he would contact me.

Doctor Ed Gelb is a self-made man of tremendous integrity that has worked hard all his life to gain top position in such an honorable profession.   Dr. Gelb is someone whose word is never doubted, if you know him personally.  He is a man we all look up to and admire for his expertise and his interrogation skills.  In a profession that searches for the truth, Dr. Gelb is an inspiration to us all.

I did not hear back from Dr. Gelb yesterday. This morning (23 Jan.) I sent him the following e-mail inquiry at egelb43972@aol.com. It is to be hoped that Dr. Gelb will soon lay the questions raised about his credentials to rest:

Dear Dr. Gelb,

My name is George Maschke, and I'm a co-founder of a website called AntiPolygraph.org (http://antipolygraph.org). Recently, a message was posted to AntiPolygraph.org's message board in which the legitimacy of your doctoral degree was called into question:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc&action=display&num=1042765547

Specifically, it was suggested that you received your doctoral degree from a now-defunct diploma mill in Louisiana called LaSalle University, whose owner and founder, Thomas Kirk (aka Thomas McPherson), has since been convicted on federal fraud charges and sentenced to prison.

I called your office yesterday and left my name, phone number, e-mail address, and the reason for my call with your assistant (I believe her name was Vivian), but I did not hear back from you.

I would be grateful if you would clarify this matter by answering the following questions:

1) From what university did you receive your doctoral degree?

2) In what year did you receive your doctoral degree?

3) In what field was your doctoral degree?

4) What is the title of your doctoral dissertation?

5) Where can a copy of your doctoral dissertation be obtained?

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

Note: A copy of this e-mail message will be added to the above-linked message thread.

wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2003 at 7:13am:

Doctor Ed Gelb is a self-made man of tremendous integrity that has worked hard all his life to gain top position in such an honorable profession.   Dr. Gelb is someone whose word is never doubted, if you know him personally.  He is a man we all look up to and admire for his expertise and his interrogation skills.  In a profession that searches for the truth, Dr. Gelb is an inspiration to us all.

Sue,

It is to be hoped that Dr. Gelb will confirm your vote of confidence in him by substantively addressing the questions I've e-mailed to him.

wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2003 at 7:13am:

Doctor Ed Gelb is a self-made man of tremendous integrity that has worked hard all his life to gain top position in such an honorable profession.   Dr. Gelb is someone whose word is never doubted, if you know him personally.  He is a man we all look up to and admire for his expertise and his interrogation skills.  In a profession that searches for the truth, Dr. Gelb is an inspiration to us all.

Sue,

Thank you for that enthusiastic endorsement of Ed Gelb's integrity, honesty, expertise, and abilities to interrogate. While we're waiting for Dr. Gelb to respond with his CV, may I ask, what is your relationship (other than an admirer) with Dr. Gelb?

That sounds like a ringing endorsement Sue.  Can you direct me to the grape koolaid?

Batman wrote on Jan 20^th, 2003 at 12:57am:

Gotta add my pennies to this one.  Every time I hear Mr. Gelb touted as the foremost expert on polygraph I cringe.  Here is a guy who got on national TV with The former LA prosecutor, Ms Clark, and polygraphed Capt. Lou Albano to determine if professional wrestling was real.  Personally I think he is an embarrassment to polygraph at any level, regardless of his highly touted credentials and background. By the way, he did get the call right on the wrestling issue, it's fake, but he couldn't get the Capt. to confess! Batman

While we're on the subject Batman, are there any other fellow polygraphers (past Presidents of your leading trade organization or otherwise) whom you'd care to excoriate? Why not just list them all now, rather than waiting for damaging information to be discovered about them and published *prior* to your condemnation?

FWIW,

The 'real' LaSalle University (based in Philadelphia) has no record whatsoever of an Edward Gelb attending, much less graduating from, either their Masters or PhD programs.

wrote on Jan 24^th, 2003 at 5:10pm:

FWIW, The 'real' LaSalle University (based in Philadelphia) has no record whatsoever of an Edward Gelb attending, much less graduating from, either their Masters or PhD programs.

A full search of WorldCat (a comprehensive catalog of 50 million documents at over 23,000 libraries in 60 countries) has only one record of a publication by Edward Gelb: a 93-page book on interrogation published in 1997.  No dissertation was found.

More importantly, there is no record of a dissertation on file for anything resembling an Edward Gelb in the Dissertation Abstracts database, which is considered the definitive worldwide collection of doctoral dissertations (it includes some masters', as well), with over 1.6 million records dating back to 1861.

Skeptic

In 1997, Mr. Gelb apparently represented himself as a Ph.D. to the U.S. Supreme Court as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D."

Has the good doctor replied to the inquiry yet?

Isn't it rather ironic that the very people who seem to take so much glee in prying into other's lives and questioning their integrity scuttle away when the light is shone into their dark corners?

Vato,

No. I have received no reply from Mr. Gelb; neither to my phone call nor to my e-mail inquiry. Perhaps you'd care to try?

I'm attempting to follow up on the resume issue as well.

Skeptic

George,
 Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post.  I wasn't implying that you weren't doing your best to verify Mr. Gelb's credentials.

-best regards

Vato,

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, either. I didn't mean to appear irritated with you! I'm not. :) What I meant was that, if you're willing, it might be helpful if you'd also contact Mr. Gelb's office seeking verification of his credentials.

It's nice to see that none of you has any productive work to do.  If you can't verify Gelb's credentials, I'm sure that 60 Minutes would find this a monumental story and would put all their resources behind it.

Observer,

Perhaps you don't think exposing a fraud is "productive work." Reasonable people might disagree, however.

That the Dissertation Abstracts database includes no dissertation by anyone with a name resembling "Edward Gelb" is prima facie evidence that Ed Gelb never filed a doctoral dissertation with any accredited university.

Ed Gelb could remove any doubt about his credentials by simply responding to the simple questions I e-mailed him. As Beech Trees noted, if he has testified as an expert witness (and I believe he has), then his CV should be a matter of public record.

On a lark I called the Media Relations Office of Los Angeles Superior Court and asked how one might obtain the CV of someone who had been recognized by the Court as an expert witness and had testified (apparently) numerous times. One would need to know the particular court in which the person testified (LASC has dozens), and even perhaps the particular case. The Clerk of The Court could then look up the case's transcript. I would presume a physical printing of the individual's resume/CV might be a part of the evidence, but whether or not that would be kept on file or not I have no idea. If anyone can name a particular case, docket number, whatever, I'll make the appropriate inquiries.

Beech Trees,

According to Los Angeles Times reporters Phil Willon and William Lobdell ("Recipient of Sex Abuse Settlement Wants Priest's Slander Suit Tossed," 7 Nov. 2002),"Dr." Gelb filed a court declaration in a civil suit filed by Monsignor Lawrence J. Baird in San Francisco Superior Court against Lori Copabianca Haigh, who had hired Gelb's services.

Baird's suit was filed in April 2002 and dismissed on 27 Nov. 2002.

Next time I'm at the San Francisco court, I'll take a look at Gelb's declaration.  I don't have any court appearances scheduled there as of now.

wrote on Jan 30^th, 2003 at 10:21pm:

Next time I'm at the San Francisco court, I'll take a look at Gelb's declaration.  I don't have any court appearances scheduled there as of now.

I don't know if that would be productive Mr. Mallah, although the offer is quite generous. The case in which Mr. Gelb was hired (CGC-02-413508, LAWRENCE J BAIRD VS. LORI CAPOBIANCO HAIGH et al) does not appear to have any record with regard to Mr. Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration contained within the court reporter's minutes. That's odd, because the record notes:

RESPONSE TO MONSIGNOR BAIRD'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; INDEX OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLS. OF LORI HAIGH, DR. EDWARD I. GELB, AND KATHERINE K. FREBERG, AND DECL. OF MARK GOLDOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFT. LORI HAIGH'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A MERITLESS SLAPP; PROOF OF SERVICE OF REPLY PAPERS FILED BY DEFENDANT HAIGH, LORI CAPOBIANCO--NOV-22-2002

Pouring over the entire file might come up with the declaration, but I doubt that Mr. Gelb's CV or resume would be there.

And for the faceless critic who smarted off about being productive, none of this would be necessary if Ed Gelb would simply answer the LEGITIMATE queries about his credentials.

How about it, Batman? Are you going to go after Mr. Gelb's credentials as vigorously as you demand them from the polygraph's detractors here? Or do credentials only matter to you when you don't like-- but cannot disprove-- what the other person is saying?

Dave, PhD in forensic psycho-physiologial-prelimbic detection of deception, LaSalle University (our school's mascot is a Bayou Billy Bob swiggin beer while driving an airboat)

Quote:

I don't know if that would be productive Mr. Mallah, although the offer is quite generous. The case in which Mr. Gelb was hired (CGC-02-413508, LAWRENCE J BAIRD VS. LORI CAPOBIANCO HAIGH et al) does not appear to have any record with regard to Mr. Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration contained within the court reporter's minutes.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  Perhaps this will clear it up:

If the court records you cited to lists Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration (and they clearly do), then that supplemental declaration will be in the file.  This supplemental declaration is a written declaration, not an oral one.  It is generally signed under penalty of perjury, and generally lists the declarant's credentials and basis for what he is testifying to in the declaration.  Thus Mr. Gelb would be expected to list his academic background, and the basis for his qualifications as an expert, and might even attach his CV as an exhibit (not uncommon).

I'm not sure what you mean by the court reporter's minutes, but if you're talking about a court reporter's transcript, there wouldn't be any unless the parties appeared in front of a judge for a motion or for trial.  The latter did not happen in this case, and most motions in SF get decided by paperwork, not personal appearances.

Does this clarify anything Dave (call me Mark please), or does your original point still hold?

Hi Mark,

The Clerk with whom I spoke did not see the same entries I was seeing on my computer screen (and which I cited). The day in question (Nov. 22) had listed some supplemental declarations, but Mr. Gelb was not listed there on her screen. (Odd!) Probably an administrative oversight, and no doubt if someone *did* go down there and pull the entire file, Mr. Gelb's info would be there. The clerk was uncertain whether or not a person's cv or resume would be filed as a part of the total record, and I certainly didn't know.

Sorry for my lack of clarity,

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the clarification.  We'll see what happens when I'm there in court to review the file.  I'm usually there about once per quarter, on average.

Mark

If I was this Ed Gelb and you George Challenged me to Verify my educational backround this is something I would gladly provide, regardless of how insignificant I believed your site to be.

I take it Dr. Gelb has been less than forthcoming with everyone's requests to see his resume and/or CV? Anyone?

Also, if the original poster could please reply with their experience at his office I'd appreciate it.

No he just commited a felony by perjuring himself. No bad for the President of the United States.   You moron

wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2003 at 12:41am:

Batman, I would think the polygraph community would be the last corporate body to criticize Bill Clinton for deceit.  I don't know how many lies or how frequently he told them, but I think we can rest assured that he did not tell as many as a polygraph examiner who lies every times he gives a CQT examination.

wrote on Feb 8^th, 2003 at 11:09pm:

No he just commited a felony by perjuring himself. No bad for the President of the United States.   You moron

You unwittingly bring up an interesting moral and legal conundrum with regard to polygraph interrogations. The pro-polygraph side was at one point on this board working the angle that it's a felony violation of some part of the US Federal Law to lie to an agent of the Federal Government-- hence we're all scum when we use countermeasures and (by necessity) lie about doing so.

They (the polygrahers) never pause to consider that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of the exact same felony every damn time they administer a polygraph to a member of a federal agency.

wrote on Feb 9^th, 2003 at 12:45am:

You unwittingly bring up an interesting moral and legal conundrum with regard to polygraph interrogations. The pro-polygraph side was at one point on this board working the angle that it's a felony violation of some part of the US Federal Law to lie to an agent of the Federal Government-- hence we're all scum when we use countermeasures and (by necessity) lie about doing so. They (the polygrahers) never pause to consider that THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of the exact same felony every damn time they administer a polygraph to a member of a federal agency.

In fairness, I think the law is intended to prevent misleading a federal official into making a wrong decision regarding federal resources -- as it's written, it's not illegal to lie to a federal official about something unrelated to his or her job, or in some inconsequential way.

That does, of course, bring up an interesting point: if that's what the law was intended to do, then doesn't it follow that people should make every effort to ensure federal officials come to the correct decisions?  Isn't that an argument for the concealed use of countermeasures?

Skeptic

;D

According to http://www.polygraph.org/apa4rev.htm#officers, three officers have Ph.D.
Searching Dissertation Abstracts and Worldcat in Fristsearch,
I found two disertations for two but not for one.

Nothing on Ryan Tulley

Gordon Barland, Ph.D..
DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN CRIMINAL SUSPECTS: A FIELD VALIDATION STUDY.
Author(s): BARLAND, GORDON H.
Degree: PH.D.
Year: 1975
Institution: THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Frank Horvath, Ph.D
THE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF POLICE POLYGRAPHIC ("LIE DETECTOR") EXAMINERS' JUDGMENTS OF TRUTH AND DECEPTION: THE EFFECT OF SELECTED VARIABLES.
Author(s): HORVATH, FRANK S.
Degree: PH.D.
Year: 1974
Pages: 00235
Institution: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; 0128

Since half of all law enforcement personnel majored in psychology, John Gray has a Ph.D. from a diploma mill.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_rebuttal_from_uranus/school.htm
about "Dr." John Gray. Ex-wife Barbara Angelis also got the same degree.

I asked friends to type John Gray's "university" and a few were found. I emailed the infor and they forwared to HR. Most got fired. Different story in the federal government. They don't care. Be careful when you ask a new Ph.D. person his dissertation topic. Half the time, they're either ABD or none. They have friends in the FBI and DSS.

PROAc,

None of the the individuals named on the American Polygraph Association web page you referenced are current APA officers (as your post implies). Note that they are merely listed as the authors of publications available from the APA.

::)

Let's get real here guys. If I was Ed Gelb, I would not give you the time of day. You all sound like a bunch of housewives sitting around talking about the neighbors.

There are people who are a hell of a lot smarter than you within the scientific and legal community who have looked in to Gelb's credentials. Don't you think that if he was a fake we would have heard it long ago?

George, you really need to get a life. By the way, have you found a job yet? Why not post your credentials on YOUR web site?

Beeched Batman

Guest

If I had PHD credentials, I would be so proud that I probably would post a copy on the nearest power pole. I certainly would present that skin to any and all who asked. Hell, I even try to do that with my BS (as in science) sheep skin. I damn near starved to death getting that first degree.

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2003 at 12:46am:

::) Let's get real here guys. If I was Ed Gelb, I would not give you the time of day. You all sound like a bunch of housewives sitting around talking about the neighbors. There are people who are a hell of a lot smarter than you within the scientific and legal community who have looked in to Gelb's credentials. Don't you think that if he was a fake we would have heard it long ago?

It has been noted before we discovered the discrepancy.


Quote:

George, you really need to get a life. By the way, have you found a job yet? Why not post your credentials on YOUR web site?

Nice dodge.  The fact is it is Edward Gelb who is claiming a Ph.D. from a specific source that has been revealed to be a diploma mill.  If and when George claims a Ph.D., you'd be welcome to look him up.  You might start with the Dissertations Abstracts, the definitive listing of Ph.D. dissertations -- which, as has been noted, contains no reference for an Edward Gelb.

And as Twoblock has noted, a Ph.D. isn't something most people are afraid of revealing; either he has one or he hasn't.

I don't blame you for your desperate (pathetic?) attempt to deflect criticism, though.  It would certainly be damaging for your snake-oil profession to be associated so strongly with a fake.

Skeptic

Quote:

Also, if the original poster could please reply with their experience at his office I'd appreciate it.

Sorry for the delay. Partly to CMA; partly because I've been busy. This is a slightly cleaned-up version of my post-interrogation notes. If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them as I can. I'd also appreciate any comments or clarifications of my own confusion. Thanks.

____________

The office is in an older building on the north side of Wilshire Blvd, 3rd floor (cost me almost 10 bucks for parking!). On the outer office doors, in big gold letters, is “Edward I. Gelb, PhD,” along with “Dee H----” There are marks where another name was removed.

Office was nondescript, clean; polite, middle-aged female receptionist in front. Gelb’s office door was closed and remained so the entire time (never saw him). The receptionist had me read a short paper about polygraphy, then wait. Took me into a cramped conference room with multiple cassette recorders (not being used) to fill out more paperwork—employment for 10 years, agencies applied to, drug use/purchase, vehicle citations/accidents. Then a 150-question test to be answered “+” or “–”: “Do you intend to be truthful? Have you ever paid for sex?” etc. (I believe these were the basis for poly questions.) Turned the forms in, then sat and waited in reception area.

A formidable, early-forties man came out wearing a white shirt and tie, introduced himself as Darrin Hayes, and took me into his office. Looked like a detective.

On his wall:
Diploma from Backster, April 2002 (Darrin C. Hayes)
Two diplomas from The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation® (2001?) (see http://www.reid.com/)

Had me read and sign another form about poly that also stated, “CA state law says that an employer cannot legally force you to take a polygraph interview.” (But does that apply to law enforcement? I didn’t want to ask, so I signed it.) He told me to hang my jacket on the rack in the room, then left me for a while. I sat there looking bored, but I did look around for signs of surveillance equipment (like clocks with little lenses, for example), and spotted nothing. I noticed that there was a space heater on in the office, under his desk; the office was almost uncomfortably warm. When he returned, he told me a little (very little) about himself, mentioning that he’d “been doing this for 17 years.” (But he just got his diplomas recently?)

Asked if I knew anything about poly; I played dumb (mentioned “Meet the Parents,” Jerry Springer). He said “That’s Hollywood,” that with the new computer program (3 months old) from “John” Hopkins University, properly calibrated, they could get up to 98% accuracy. Went over all the questions, but what threw me was that they were all in the form of “Are you withholding information about…?” Which I wasn’t expecting, and which made it harder for me to decide which were controls.

He asked if I wanted to use restroom or get water; I asked for water. He left the room to get it; had me sit in the exam chair as he left. The chair had no visible wires, so I assumed no pressure sensors, facing a blank white wall. Sat there for a while, not moving. Hayes came back with water, left again. Came back, explained all the attachments to me, cautioned me that "part of the test is being able to follow instructions." Hooked me up. I kept my breathing even, but shallow.

Did a “calibration”: “Is your name XXXX? Do you live in California? Are you withholding any secret reason for applying to this agency? What’s x times y plus z?” (I puckered at this point.) He said he got a “very clean, crisp reading.” Then “The test is about to begin, do not move during the exam.” (Said this preceding both charts.)

What I remember:
“Is your first name XXXX?”
“Are you withholding information about having lied to anyone you love and trust?”
“Are you withholding information about having lied to a family member?”
“Are you withholding information about your reasons for seeking employment with this agency?”
“Are you withholding information about having committed a serious crime?”
…past drug use?
…illegal sexual activity?

Finished the first chart, then said we’d do another one, with same questions in different order. Also that he might repeat questions, which he did (serious crimes). Announced end of test, unhooked me and had me sit in the chair beside his desk.

Post-test:
Told me that the “only cause for concern” was “Are you withholding information about having committed a serious crime?” He asked it twice in the second exam and said that I “reacted” more strongly each time (if it had been weaker, it wouldn’t have been a concern, he said). According to him, I had reacted "3 times higher" the last time he asked it than on the calibration question. He highlighted the score on the paper the printer spat out (not a chart, but what looked like a summary of scores) and then marked it with a red arrow. (That devious bastard—he made me violate page 80-81.) I did not see a chart. Didn’t ask for one.

He asked why I would have had a reaction to that question. I recall being asked the second time (first time in second exam) and reacting somewhat. I think I was half puckering randomly, spacing out. I wondered what “serious” crimes were… I told him I sort of panicked in the second instance, because I wasn’t sure what he meant by “serious” (he reviewed: murder, arson, rape, assault, etc.). Finally, I gave up having started a fire at 3 (caught) and 6 or 7 (not caught). He said that he didn’t know what my reaction was about, he wasn’t going to ask, but that it would be up to my agency to make the decision. He would “e-mail the charts and send the disk” to the agency, have “Dr.” Gelb review my charts, and also send them to “John” Hopkins for review.

So I guess I was sort of inconclusive (although he never really said one way or the other—I think it was just a fishing expedition), and I made the mistake of giving him something, but overall I controlled myself better than I expected. Just tried to maintain the breathing (at one point I took a deeper breath and he cautioned against it, that it would “work against” me) and pucker when necessary (as it turned out, I wasn’t exactly sure when)—I should have reacted more to the “lying to a loved one question.” (Just sort of tough trying to decipher which were the control questions, although I’m sure that wasn’t one of them!)

Now it’s up to the agency. If they try to DQ me for it, I’ll demand a retest or challenge it. In any case, it's been weeks and I have heard nothing either way.

AntiPolygraph.org has received  through anonymous remailers three e-mail messages regarding "Dr." Gelb. These messages suggest that Edward I. Gelb has indeed represented himself to the court as being a Ph.D. psychologist:

Message One:


Quote:

National Jury Verdict Review  Analysis SCOTT T. COXON, ET AL. vs. PEPSICO A/K/A PEPSI COLA, ET AL. Case No. 687812 Verdict Date: Verdict Date: July 22, 1996 Publication Date: Publication Date: October, 1996 Topic: Non-suit - False imprisonment - Emotional distress - Three employees claimed they were falsely imprisoned by employer during questioning regarding employee theft Title: False Imprisonment State: California County: San Diego County Judge: Judge Wayne Peterson Plaintiff Attorney: Paul S. Kennerly of San Diego Defendant Attorney: Clark R. Hudson of Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown  Frank in San Diego (for defendant investigative group) Miles D. Scully of Gordon  Rees in San Diego and Steven R. Parminter of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman  Dicker in Los Angeles (for defendant Pepsico) Plaintiff Cause: Three plaintiffs brought this action alleging that they were falsely imprisoned during their employers investigation of employee theft and moonlighting issues. The plaintiffs, who were eventually terminated, claimed wage loss, loss of reputation and emotional distress damages. The defendant employer (Pepsico) hired the co-defendant investigator to investigate allegations of employee theft and moonlighting. All three plaintiffs were eventually terminated, but claimed that their confessions to theft were coerced and that they were not permitted to leave the room or to seek union representation. Defendant Contentions: The defendants denied the plaintiffs claims, maintaining that the questioning was appropriate and that the confessions were not coerced. The Court granted summary judgment as to the claims of two of the three plaintiffs. The third plaintiffs claims proceeded to trial at which a non-suit was granted. Defendant Experts: Defendants security expert: Edward I. Gelb, C.P.E., A.C.P., Ph.D. from Los Angeles Issue: Published in Volume 11, Issue 10

Message Two:


Quote:

SCOTT T. COXON ET AL. v. PEPSICO, INC. AKA PEPSI-COLA AKA PEPSI (PEPSI) CHANNEL ISLAND BEVERAGE CO. (CIB) AND PALOMAR INVESTIGATIVE GROUP, INC. ET AL. Case No. 687812 July 22, 1996 TOPIC: FALSE IMPRISONMENT RESULT: NONSUIT INJURY: Plaintiff claimed emotional distress and loss of reputation as a result of defendants conduct. SPECIALS: Not reported. STATE: California COURT: San Diego County Superior Court JUDGE: Hon. Wayne L. Peterson PLAINTIFF COUNSEL: Paul S. Kennerly, San Diego DEFENDANT COUNSEL: Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman  Dicker, Los Angeles, by Steven R. Parminter--for Pepsico, CIB and Anthony S. Fogel Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown  Frank, San Diego, by Clark R. Hudson--for Palomar Gordon  Rees, San Diego, by Miles D. Scully--for Jack H. Suttie SUMMARY: In April of 1994, plaintiffs Scott T. Coxon, a refrigeration technician, Michael T. Morishige, and Robert A. Cocita, both service technicians, all in their mid 40s and all employed by defendant Pepsi, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned during an investigation of employee theft, moonlighting, and conflict of interest issues. Defendants Palomar Investigative Group and Jack Suttie were hired to investigate the allegations. As a result of the investigation, the employment of all three plaintiffs was terminated. Defendant CID was the local distributor, and defendant Anthony S. Fogel was CIDs human resources manager. Summary judgment was granted as to the claims of Coxon and Morishige. Plaintiff contended that he was not permitted to leave the room during the investigation that he was not allowed to seek union representation and that his confession was coerced. Defendants contended that the investigation was reasonable and that their subsequent actions were based on the admissions made by plaintiff. Five-day trial. D-EXPERTS: Edward I. Gelb, Ph.D. (Psychologist) Los Angeles POST TRIAL MOTION: Motion for new trial not made. SETTLEMENT TALKS: Demand $800,000 C.C.P. 998, reduced to $500,000, further reduced to $300,000 for all three plaintiffs before the motions for summary judgment were granted. Demand $500,000 by plaintiff Cocita before trial. Offer $2,051 to each plaintiff, C.C.P. 998, by defendant Suttie. ISSUE: VOLUME 41, NUMBER 2

Message Three:


Quote:

Trials Digest Logo Expert Witnesses - "G" Trials Digest has trial reports and/or deposition transcripts of the following experts. Find out if we have information on the expert you are opposing or thinking of retaining. Even if you do not see the experts name, give us a call at 800-365-0379. We add hundreds of experts to our databases each month. Gelb, Edward - Forensic Psychophysiologist

I'll be in court tomorrow in San Francisco.  I'll take a look at that case where Dr.?/Mr.? Gelb reportedly signed a declaration as to his credentials.

Stay tuned.

OK, I just got back from court and reviewed the file where Gelb filed two declarations--the original, and then a supplemental declaration.  I did not have much time to read his declarations (I had to attend a hearing), but I visually scanned them.  The first declaration appeared to be his polygraph report of one of the parties, and the supplemental declaration contained boilerplate pronouncements about the polygraph's awesome diagnostic capabilities.

I found his resume and copied it.  It is in front of me now.  Here is a summary of it:

The header in the uppper left corner says "INTERCEPT, INC."  The right hand header contains his address and contact information.

The name is listed as "EDWARD I. GELB, Ph.D., A.C.P., A.C.F.E."

Under "summary of qualifications", it states: "Forensic Psychophysiologist."

The resume is all narrative, 5 paragraphs long.  Here is his only statement about his education (excluding polygraph schools):

"Dr. Gelb was educated at the University of Southern California, LaSalle University and U.C.L.A.  He has been awarded a bachelor's degree in political science, a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in psychology."

This strikes me as obfuscation.  He never says where he earned which degree, or when he earned it.  Neither does he say where Lasalle University is.  Are we to presume that he lists the universities in an order corresponding with the order in which he lists his degrees?  In other words, did he receive his BA at USC, his masters at LaSalle, and his doctorate at U.C.L.A.?

I don't want to get too picayune, but if this were Bill Clinton's resume, I would note that in the first sentence he says he was "educated " at USC, Lasalle, and UCLA, but he does not say he earned his degrees there.  He states in a separate, disconnected, sentence, that he has been awarded a bachelor's degree, master's, and doctorate.  But from where?  What kind of relationship, if any, do the two sentences have to each other?

Most of the resume talks about his memberships, where he has taught, awards, and the institutions for whom he conducts polygraphs.

That's about enough parsing for now.  George, let me know if if you want me to mail you a copy of his resume for you to scan.

Mark,

If Ed Gelb had earned a doctoral degree from either USC or UCLA, his dissertation would be included in the Dissertation Abstracts database.

I think we can safely say at this point that "Dr." Ed Gelb has been exposed as a phony Ph.D.

Please do mail me a copy of his resume! I'll scan it and put it on-line. It should be of great interest to anyone who might consider hiring the "doctor's" services, and to any lawyers who might question him on cross-examination. :)

I really don't want to get into defending or prosecuting Gelb...I am just wondering....Let's say that the Lasalle that awarded his degree IS bogus.  What is there to say that he did not actually believe his degree was genuine when he received it.  I know that sounds like a stretch and you are probably right that he SHOULD have known...but I guess I would feel just as strongly saying that he gets the degree (I really don't know how much work would have been involved in his particular program) and THEN finds out that Lasalle is bogus....does he have any obligation to go out publicly and denounce his degree?  I would like to hear from both sides of this argument.   Please note AGAIN, I am not either defending or prosecuting him....just wondering and putting this out for discussion.  I was talking this over with a friend the other day and we both agreed that if one of us went out and "bought" something and paid a lot of money for it and then it turned out to be a lemon, who we "proudly" announce to the world that we were stupid enough to pay good money for something worthless....and would we have any LEGAL obligation to announce this.  Oh,...and just for the record, I am NOT Gelb!

Guest,

The answer is quite clear with regard to the hypothetical situation you pose.  Assuming Mr. Gelb gave what amounted to false testimony under oath regarding his academic background (not realizing this testimony was false and therefore perjurous--as you indicate a scenario requiring considerable imagination when it involves a program that would normally involve several years of participation and knowledge thereof ), he would have an obligation to correct any mistakes in that testimony immediately upon realizing the error.

guest,

Gelb is a fraud and a felon plain and simple.

It's not much of a stretch to lie about obtaining an advanced degree when you lie for a living.

Tell thousands of lies, what's one more.

As for the 'buying' a degree and thinking its legit-  PLEASE!!  Don't allow yourself to be deceived.  

Some people are willing to do anything for money! That includes people in (or near) LE.  

Gelb is probably not the only one either!!

Gelb's an idiot.  To say he represents the polygraph community is to say OJ represents fine cutlery.

Saidme,

An interesting perspective you share with us:


Quote:

...Gelb's an idiot.  To say he represents the polygraph community is to say OJ represents fine cutlery....

I do not know whether he is an idiot, but it is reasonaby certain that Mr.Gelb is not only a polygrapher but one who has been celebrated, awarded, and elected to leadership postitions within his and presumably your community.  As such he may well more widely represent polygraphy to the lay public and even the polygraph community than do you.  Your comparison to O.J. Simpson and cutlery is not only inappropriate but wrong.  I think, unless you are prepared to state that the various past and present (elected) presidents of polygraph associations do not represent polygraphy, your thinking is misplaced.  Are you a member of the American Polygraph Association?  If so, instead of an anonymous and cowardly attack such as you have made here, why don't you openly initiate an ethics complaint leading to an investigation of matters of concern...

Guest,
Offering graduate degrees that are based on "life experience" and the balance in your checkbook are pure fraud. Anybody who believed that they were getting a genuine degree would have to be very naive.
Anonymous,
Great response to Saidme.

Orolan, I just don't know.  Just out of curiosity, I surfed the web using Google and the words "life experience PhD".  I was surprised at the number of institutions appearing under that heading, some of which, I had to admit had very impressive sounding and appearing web sites.  Now granted,  that might very well be an advertising ploy, but that kind of advertising costs money.  There are even references of accreditations (albeit in at least one, the degree granting institution makes it clear that their accreditation is not recognized by the Department of Education; and another through the country of Liberia - you know the country which many cruise lines register the ships through to avoid the regulatory controls imposed by the United States.  The point of all this, is that these institutions are out there providing a service.  If there was not significant demand for it, then they would fade away.  They most likely walk a very thin line, but I am not sure you can defend the use of the word "naive".  Ifg that were the case, there are an awful lot of "naive" people out there.  The attack on Gelb, at least on the surface, does not appear to be because of what he did (apparently a lot of people do it), but who he is.  Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the intent of this web site to do something to undermine these degree granting institutions rather than attacking the man? I would bet that there are a lot of people out there who attended "legitamate" institutions and took courses out of their planned curricula just for the purpose of fulfilling grtaduation requirements....not exactly the same, but nonetheless, equally devious.  I doubt anyone would defend him actions...what he did, he probably brought a lot of unwanted attention to himself, but then again, haven't a lot of people done this to themselves?  It just gives you pause to think.

wrote on Jun 16^th, 2003 at 12:22am:

Orolan, I just don't know.  Just out of curiosity, I surfed the web using Google and the words "life experience PhD".  I was surprised at the number of institutions appearing under that heading, some of which, I had to admit had very impressive sounding and appearing web sites.  Now granted,  that might very well be an advertising ploy, but that kind of advertising costs money.  There are even references of accreditations (albeit in at least one, the degree granting institution makes it clear that their accreditation is not recognized by the Department of Education; and another through the country of Liberia - you know the country which many cruise lines register the ships through to avoid the regulatory controls imposed by the United States.  The point of all this, is that these institutions are out there providing a service.  If there was not significant demand for it, then they would fade away.  They most likely walk a very thin line, but I am not sure you can defend the use of the word "naive".  Ifg that were the case, there are an awful lot of "naive" people out there.  The attack on Gelb, at least on the surface, does not appear to be because of what he did (apparently a lot of people do it), but who he is.  Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the intent of this web site to do something to undermine these degree granting institutions rather than attacking the man? I would bet that there are a lot of people out there who attended "legitamate" institutions and took courses out of their planned curricula just for the purpose of fulfilling grtaduation requirements....not exactly the same, but nonetheless, equally devious.  I doubt anyone would defend him actions...what he did, he probably brought a lot of unwanted attention to himself, but then again, haven't a lot of people done this to themselves?  It just gives you pause to think.

Lets get something perfectly clear here: No one is 'attacking' Ed Gelb. Ed Gelb made a choice: He chose to purchase a fake doctoral degree from the premiere diploma mill, 'LaSalle University'. No, this is not the actual, accredited universityin Philadelphia, PA, this is the LaSalle University that was run by serial felon James Kirk:

In addition to dabbling in film production, 3-D film distribution, and a video dating service, in the late 70s he got involved with a correspondence law school called the University of San Gabriel Valley (it no longer exists; the California Supreme Court suspended one of Kirk's lawyer-partners for three years and placed the other on probation for a year). But Kirk saw the cash potential and opened his own Southland University down the street. When Southland could no longer meet California's minimal operating requirements, he moved it. It ended up in Missouri, where he changed its name to LaSalle University and his own to Thomas McPherson. Leaving Missouri a few steps ahead of the sheriff, he found a haven in Louisiana's unregulated world of higher education. He ran ads in dozens of airline and business magazines. He took a vow of poverty, so his World Christian Church owned the university, his Porsche, and his million-dollar home. And when the federal authorities finally came for him, they discovered bank deposits in excess of $35 million, current cash deposits of $10 million, and numerous other assets. Kirk/McPherson was indicted on 18 counts of mail fraud, wire (telephone) fraud, and tax fraud, among others. Following a plea bargain, he was sentenced to five years in federal prison.

Ed Gelb knowingly commited serial perjury as well as misrepresented himself innumerable times in the press, on television, and he continues to do so on his website.

If demanding that a person who claims to be a PhD actually EARNED his doctorate rather than simply paying James Kirk several thousand dollars for one is 'attacking', then you and I have very different opinion over what 'attacking' means.

Guest,
I know of several. But most of them offer "assessed life experience credit". In other words, if you want to gain credit for a foreign language on the basis that you lived in Mexico for 6 years, then write a 15,000 word term paper. In Spanish. And if it's good enough, you get the credit-hours. Thus you avoid the need to sit in a classroom for 4 semesters. Colleges and universities throughout the country do this in many subjects, using what is called a "CLEP" test.
There are many college-level courses that one could possibly opt out of due to experience. Can you imagine Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, sitting through Econ 1010? No. But you could make him take the final exam for Econ 2020 if he wanted the credit-hours.
When handled in this way, "life experience" credit would be perfectly valid in my opinion. But there is no "life experience" that can replace the time and research needed to complete a thesis worthy of bestowing a Ph.D. And as far as I'm concerned, anybody who got a Ph.D. without having to write a thesis does a great disservice to those who got theirs the "real" way.
The fact that their are a lot of people "buying" a Ph.D. doesn't make it right. And maybe "naive" is the wrong word to use to describe them. How about "lazy", "immoral" or "crooked"?

Quote:

Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the intent of this web site to do something to undermine these degree granting institutions rather than attacking the man?

The intent of this site is not to bring down the "diploma mills". It is to bring down the polygraph. And Mr. Gelb, as a very vocal and visible member of the polygraph community, has put himself right in the line of fire.

I've summarized some of the key information brought to light in this message thread in an article titled, "Polygraph Operator 'Dr.' Edward I. Gelb Exposed as a Phony Ph.D."

The copy of Gelb's resume that Mark obtained may now be downloaded as a PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/gelb-resume-2002.pdf

I would just add that courts do not look kindly upon expert witnesses who falsify their credentials.  Several years ago, Johnny St. Valentine Brown Jr., a former police officer and drug expert for the US Attorneys office in Washington DC , was discovered to have falsified his pharmacology degee in testimony he gave in various civil and riminal cases for over 20 years.  Amazingly, no one had ever checked his credentials because he was so well known.  Finally an inexperienced attorney trying his first drug related case did a background check.  Brown pled guilty to 8 counts of perjury and spent several years in prison.  The US Attorney's office spent years dealing with appeals in every case that Brown had testified in.

Where has Gelb given expert testimony or filed an affidavit or declaration under oath.? The lawyers of the individuals against who he testified would be most interested in your findings.

Let's not forget Al Gore who claimed to have invented the internet! :)

Saidme wrote on Jun 20^th, 2003 at 2:48am:

Let's not forget Al Gore who claimed to have invented the internet! :)

I'd rather we not forget past American Polygraph Association President Ed Gelb willingly perjured himself repeatedly in courts of law by claiming an education he doesn't have.

George, skeptic, beech trees......

After reading Gelb's resume I think that simply exposing him here is not enough.

I think that the:
                                      Los Angeles Superior Court
                         Los Angles Police Commission
                         Federal Public Defender Office
                         LA County DA Office
                         FBI
                         American College of Foresic Examiners

    might want to know that he faked his credentials.

What do you think about a letter writing campaign?

I contacted a writer who has shown interest in the polygraph topic and specifically in hanging Gelb out to dry.  He is finishing another article now, but promises that he will get to it soon.  

I would be interested in hearing your opinions, ideas or suggestions.



                     

Let's hope that the profession of polygraphy has ethics enough to police one of their own.



suethem wrote on Jun 20^th, 2003 at 11:28pm:

George, skeptic, beech trees...... After reading Gelb's resume I think that simply exposing him here is not enough. I think that the:                                       Los Angeles Superior Court                          Los Angles Police Commission                          Federal Public Defender Office                          LA County DA Office                          FBI                          American College of Foresic Examiners     might want to know that he faked his credentials. What do you think about a letter writing campaign? I contacted a writer who has shown interest in the polygraph topic and specifically in hanging Gelb out to dry.  He is finishing another article now, but promises that he will get to it soon.   I would be interested in hearing your opinions, ideas or suggestions.

Beech trees,

"let's hope that the profession of polygraphy has ethics enough to police one of their own."


-That's good stuff, Beech tress - I had a good laugh.  A real belly roller.

But seriously.... This guys has been involved in a lot of serious cases and worked with multiple agencies.

To bring him down in public (print) could lead to an investigation and a review of the cases in which he was
an expert (when he falsely claimed to have  Phd).  

Polygraphers are always saying that they are just after the truth- so lets give them what they want!

Suethem,

If you can make the time to do so, you might wish to contact the agencies you mentioned yourself regarding Gelb's false claim to be a Ph.D.

I think that this topic would be a great story for an investigative reporter. It would be of national  -- and not just local -- interest.

Beech and others

I don't know what cases Mr Gelb testified in court about but my thoughts are he probably did not testify about polygraph per se.  He probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations, therefore, the results of those cases would be impacted little if at all based on his alleged phony degree.  And if it is from a degree mill, does he still not have it?  In the end, the bad guys are still the bad guys.  Let's not continue to put the police on trial.  Unless of course if you believe OJ's innocent!

Saidme,

I agree that Mr Gelb most likely testified about confessions in court and it may have little impact on that; however, whether he is a polygraph examiner or a doctor, lawyer, or indian chief, does it not matter if a person falsely represents his/her credentials to a court of law?  

If one will lie/misrepresent their credentials what else has one lied/misrepresented in a court of law?  If he perjured himself over his credentials, how can the court take his accounting of a confession as being truthful?  It all comes down to a matter of ethics.  

We may or may not agree with polygraph, but I believe no matter what you do in life if it is based on a lie, then you lack all character and credibility as a person.  Will the APA care if a past president falsely represented his academic credentials?  One would hope so, but I think APA President Skip Webb and crew really don’t care.  If they (APA) did care, they would have urged Mr Gelb to confront this allegation as soon as it was brought up

True, in the end the bad guys are still the bad guys, but when a “good guy” must falsely represent himself…. Is he really one of the good guys?  No one is putting the police on trial here.  I don’t believe Ed Gelb has ever been a sworn office of the law, only a publicity and money hungry private sector polygraph examiner.

Saidme,

I'm sorry but it is the very police who you would not have us put on trial whom we would expect and demand not to misrepresent credentials...we expect the bad guys to commit such fraud...sorry...back to the drawing board with that line of reasoning...

Saidme,

You write:


Quote:

I don't know what cases Mr Gelb testified in court about but my thoughts are he probably did not testify about polygraph per se.  He probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations, therefore, the results of those cases would be impacted little if at all based on his alleged phony degree.

We can be confident that Ed Gelb has testified to matters other than admissions he may have obtained in the course of polygraph interrogations. As I noted in an earlier post in this message thread (perhaps you missed it), Mr. Gelb filed a court declaration in San Francisco Superior Court in a civil suit filed by Monsignor Lawrence J. Baird against Lori Copabianca Haigh, who had hired Gelb's services. Presumably, Haigh did not submit any opinion by Mr. Gelb that she had been deceptive with regard to her claims against Monsignor Baird.

Your assumption that Gelb "probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations" short-sighted. Gelb's services are for hire, and the results of the polygraph examinations he conducts with regard to civil litigation are presumably protected by attorney-client priviledge. If the results of any polygraph examination Gelb is hired to conduct are not to the client's liking, they will not be introduced as evidence in court.

But even if Gelb had only testified with regard to admissions obtained in the course of polygraph interrogations, this would in no way excuse the fraud he has committed against the courts (and his clients) by falsely representing himself as a Ph.D.

Regarding Gelb's bogus degree, you write:


Quote:

And if it is from a degree mill, does he still not have it?  In the end, the bad guys are still the bad guys.

A doctoral degree from an unaccredited institution is no degree at all. Mr. Gelb is fraudulently presenting himself to the public and the courts as a Ph.D. Are you willing to excuse such fraud simply because Gelb is a fellow polygraph operator?


Quote:

Let's not continue to put the police on trial.

No one is putting the police on trial. Ed Gelb is not a cop. He is is, however, a former LAPD lieutenant and a past president of the American Polygraph Association.

Saidme wrote on Jun 21^st, 2003 at 9:00pm:

Beech and others I don't know what cases Mr Gelb testified in court about but my thoughts are he probably did not testify about polygraph per se.

Saidme, do you know what an 'expert witness' is?


Quote:

He probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations, therefore, the results of those cases would be impacted little if at all based on his alleged phony degree.

Unless of course, he's lying about those results as well.


Quote:

In the end, the bad guys are still the bad guys.

In your opinion saidme, is someone who commits perjury a 'bad guy'? If not, why?


Quote:

Let's not continue to put the police on trial.

As has been noted previously, Ed Gelb is not a police officer-- however I'm curious about your double standard.

Finally, I find it infuriating and pathetic that you would defend a man whom you would be mercilessly castigating if he wasn't a polygrapher like you. Tell me saidme, what would you be typing right now if it was Dr. Drew Richardson instead of Eddie Gelb who was found to have falsified his credentials?

Boys and Girls

Don't misinterpret my posts as defenses for Mr Gelb.  I think my feelings on this guy are quite clear.  

As to the rest of the information, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.  You guys/gals are out waving the flag and crying about how this store bought examiner has lied and deceived the courts.  At the same time, you're providing known convicted criminals with information you perceive will assist them in getting through court ordered polygraph examinations.  Potentially allowing them to reoffend.  Then you'll attack  the polygraph profession for allowing this terrible thing to occur.  And you'll do this from your high idealistic plateau you've created for yourselves probably patting each other on the back because you've protected our great nation (even the world) from the deceitful polygraph monster.  You guys make me sick.  You should all be charged as accessories. ;)

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

Boys and Girls Don't misinterpret my posts as defenses for Mr Gelb.  I think my feelings on this guy are quite clear.

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:

As to the rest of the information, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.  You guys/gals are out waving the flag and crying about how this store bought examiner has lied and deceived the courts.  At the same time, you're providing known convicted criminals with information you perceive will assist them in getting through court ordered polygraph examinations.  Potentially allowing them to reoffend.  Then you'll attack  the polygraph profession for allowing this terrible thing to occur.  And you'll do this from your high idealistic plateau you've created for yourselves probably patting each other on the back because you've protected our great nation (even the world) from the deceitful polygraph monster.  You guys make me sick.  You should all be charged as accessories. ;)

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


Quote:

Having been an examiner for some time now I can tell you with certainty that most countermeasures are detectable.  It's not really a matter of how well you (examinee) employ them, it's more how close the examiner is watching for them.  Most federal examiners are well versed in countermeasures and do a pretty good job ferreting them out… I know our detection efforts detect more than the crude CM's you describe… I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's… I can only provide you with my personal experiences regarding polygraphs and CM's.  I can't account for the last 50 years of lie detection.  A properly trained examiner can, will, and does detect CM's…

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?

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 23^rd, 2003 at 12:48am:

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.

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:

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.

Uh huh.


Quote:

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

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?

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?

;D  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.

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.

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?

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.

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... :D

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

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?

Yes,

I am frequently invited to social gatherings.

Nonombre

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

Yes, I am frequently invited to social gatherings. Nonombre

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

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

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

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

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

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 2:02am:

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

Aw, lighten up "Francis."

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

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 3:01am:

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

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.
 

 

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

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

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?

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

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?

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 4:41am:

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

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. :D

Anxietyguy

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

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. :D Anxietyguy

Not very nice, are you?

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.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 9:06am:

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.

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.  ::)

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??? :-[

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. 

wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 9:25pm:

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

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.