I dont know this guy or anything about him, but he's jamming this site for questioning his credentials and put up his own site to provide information

https://web.archive.org/web/20061120200704/http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000311.html

Expired URL edited to reflect Internet Archive copy. --AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Bill,

Mr. Matte seems to be upset by my article, "'Dr.' James Allan Matte Is Not a Genuine Ph.D." While he may argue that his degree is "legal," as I note in that article, "the fact remains that Columbia Pacific University was never at any time an accredited degree-granting institution" (emphasis added).

George,

Mr. Matte did not have the forwardness to even mention your name, basically referring to you as a disgruntled failed applicant with the FBI and LAPD.  Seems as though you have quite visibly ruffled his feathers.  Note, however, that he did not post his ramblings here at antipolygraph.org but at the 'ole polyplace board.  Good job!!!    :D

Try this web site, on Mr Matte's Alma Mata:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/cpu.html

Says it all ... or just do a search on Columbia Pacific University  on google ... it is most enlighting ... hmm a polygraph examiner that has phoney degrees ... sounds like deception to me !! Maybe next time he is on the machine he may want countermeasures ... hehehe
EJ

Doctor of BS  .... Indeed !!!  :o

Brandon,

Note that while Mr. Matte attacks my motivation -- along with the innuendo that I should not be believed because I "failed" two polygraph "tests" (regarding which I have made a public statement) -- he does not actually refute any of the facts presented in my article.

Matte's "degree" was granted by an unaccredited distance learning school. The academic world does not recognize the legitimacy of his "Ph.D.," and those contemplating hiring his services should be aware of this.

If you will, please note the humor of "Dr." Matte's post on the polygraphplace message board.  It is one which says, "Hey colleagues of mine, don't believe what the evil naysayer, Maschke has to say.  Really, I am a Doctor.  Two courts have said so."

Also, just the accusation of Mr. Maschke being a disgruntled former applicant says it all.  Everyone of these poly proponents attempts to discredit George by any means possible as if he is choking away their life's blood because their thouroughly flawed technique of detecting deception has categorized yet another innocent of deception.  I have witnessed written attacks of all kind on George.  All of them unfairly launched.  They all speak as though their vast "education" somehow makes them more knowledgeable and respectable than Mr. Maschke.  They simply cannot accept the fact that George is kicking the flies (polygraphers) off of the bullshit (polygraph testing).

Well Mr. Matte, a degree in bullshit is a degree in bullshit no matter how you slice it.  Perhaps if you had concentrated on your education as much as you have concentrated on its defense you would be a bonafide PHD.  However, you have been outed.  By your second post, I ascertain that even your fellow polygraphsters have questioned your credentials.  And you have written text books on polygraph?  Well at least those students are learning bullshit from a bullshitter.

I would have written this post on the 'ole polyplace, however I would have been instantly removed.    ;D

To George, I say cheers.  Keep helping to out these idiots of bastard science.

To Sackett of the Polygraphplace message board:

I would have posted my response at that board if not for the overprotective overseeers which protect you from my freedom of speech in order to envelope you in all the greatness which is polygraph.  I guess we will have to discuss over two boards.  Unfortunate since you are free to post here, unlike I am able to post at polygraphplace.com.  But the protection must be nice.

As with "Dr" Matte it is too bad that your are lacking the guts to post here.  It would seem that your are a bit afraid of freedom of speech at your protected internet home.  Why in the past sixs months I have been threatened with removal from that board for directly challenging you on a point in which you were absolutely incorrect.  If you can figure that one out have me removed.

You keep believing in your revered "doctor" and your truth machine.  Your language in your last ignorant post definitely leads the reader to believe you are running scared.  Hopefully, Missouri will soon ban polygraph testing as a means of employment screening.  Then hopefully, you will find yourself in the same line as the innocents you have kept from employment...the line without the job desired.

You strike me as the same kind of person that I had the unfortunate experience of a polygraph test with earlier this year.  I am sure you would quickly make your decision whether the candidate passes or fails based on your skewed first impression.  I am thankful that I will not have to submit to a test administered by you.

Yes, Jim Matte, good job.  Let me introduce you to Sackett a first year graduate of your school of bullshit.  I also am a PHD and a polygrapher in Arizona (I have the same required credentials as the both of you in my state).

Also, next time please credit my post by name (which is authentic) and not some uninformed ignorant poster.  Please feel free to mention AntiPolygraph.org as well.  Wording such as that you provided shows your fear of what this sight is about.  If you or any of your colleagues would care for one on one conversation email me at:  hall@antipolygraph.org

Also, a more recognized and respectable PHD you may want to research is Dr. David Lykken.  His credentials are without question.

Last night, I may have spoken unfairly.  I do not hold the belief that all polygraphers are horrible people.  There is one in particular which has earned my trust and respect.  He earned trust and respect by discussing openly the topic of polygraphy.  I was not shut-down like at the polygraphplace.com message board.  This particular person afforded me the chance to discuss my misgivings about polygraph and provided meaninful responses.  Although I may not agree with all of his responses, I do appreciate his openness.  Many of the posting examiners at polyplace have provided helpful information as well, so long as I didn't get out-of-line while posting there.  With that said, I continue to hold the belief that employment screen polygraph examinations are a detriment to the agency, public and applicant.

One other note to Sackett:  No I do not believe that it is my born right to enjoy governmental employment.  However, I do feel that it is my right to receive fair and impartial treatment in making application.  I am just as qualified and more so in many instances than those who receive the civil jobs.

I have noticed the thread regarding "Dr." Matte is now locked at polygraphplace.com.  That is unfortunate as Dr. Richardson was making great points.  Censorship at its best and reminiscent of tactics used by some of the more unsavory governments operating in our world.

I think the question that the polygraph community, and especially the American Polygraph Association (APA), needs to come to terms with is whether it is acceptable for a member to place the title "Doctor" in front of his or her name when in fact that member has not earned any such degree from any accredited university. I think that this is a deceptive business practice and should be roundly condemned.

Members of the polygraph community who falsely hold themselves out to be Ph.D.s include not only James Allan Matte, but also Michael Martin and Edward I. Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association. While I am not sure about Mr. Gelb, the former two are current members of the APA and are listed in that organization's on-line member directory.

All three of these phony Ph.D.s also have paid listings on PolygraphPlace.com's polygrapher locator service. While only Mr. Gelb's listing includes a reference to his "degree," all three listings include links to their respective websites, where they claim the title "Doctor" the better to market their polygraph services.

darkcobra2005,

Note that in defending his "degree," Mr. Matte does not dispute the fact that Columbia Pacific University (CPU) was never at any time an accredited degree-granting institution. Instead, he attempts to divert attention from this critically important fact by pointing to CPU's erstwhile legal status, which is not the issue at hand. Legal recognition by the California Department of Education is no substitute for accreditation, as Mr. Matte seemingly would have the public believe.

Looks like a case of "deception indicated" with our Mr Matte here.

Matte is clever here with his web site.  If you click on a link to his site from George's site, Matte interecepts the referrer URL and takes you do this page:   http://www.mattepolygraph.com/matte/cpu.html  his rationalization that his PHD is valid.

Try it: click on http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-046.shtml then follow the "expert testimony" link to Matte's site.  Pretty funny if you ask me.

If Matte looked at his logs, he'd probably find that antipolygraph.org brings more traffic to his site than other sources.

Jeffery,

Thanks for pointing this out. I noticed that all of the several links to different pages on his website that I provided in my article are now re-directed to http://www.mattepolygraph.com/matte/cpu.html . I'll see what, if anything, I can do to remedy this.

Interestingly, Matte's defense of his "degree" seems not to be mentioned on any other page on his website. The only way one might find it would be to follow a link from AntiPolygraph.org or the link Matte posted to the PolygraphPlace.com message board.

George,
 it seems through the posting responses that you and others have done a very good job in discrediting this "Doctor" James Allan Matte.

 The one annoying factor about some of these phoneys, is they dare not only to attempt to criticize the legitmacy behind your noble cause, but have had their own credibilty destroyed beyond anything by trying to convince everyone around them they earned a docorate degree through an accredited school, which I now know through the posted responses, he didn't. In other words, James Allan Matte is one of the many who probably sifted through a newspaper and subsequently sent away for his university degree to some fly-by-night school by mail. What a loser!

 For someone like Matte to spend equal time in bashing your site, instead of having something better to do with his "doctorate" degree tells me he's either way too insecure about his own direction of educational success, and/or he's aware there are people out there, mainly supporters on this board who, having read many of the posting threads, now simply don't buy into the fake mind-game voodoo science of polygraphy.

 I need not add any more in critcism toward James Matte, as I feel he is unworthy of any and all unintended publicity.

 Mike_C.

It is unfortunate that Polygraphplace.com is so intent on quashing relevant, meaningful discussions concerning their polygraph machine and techniques.  It is easy to understand, however, as it mirrors the way many (not all) polygraphers go about their business of testing applicants.  They, or their machines, can do no wrong and are always correct.  This is how they are trained.  Their heads and egos grow to enormous sizes.  They cannot be reasoned with, as they are never wrong.  If a person "fails" their polygraph, then that person is a liar.  Case closed.  

They will never admit that the polygraph is invalid or unreliable, or that their entire career in polygraph may be questionable.  I'm not saying that all polygraphers are this way, but the two I had fit this mold perfectly.