J.B.,


Quote:

Polygraph has been shown to have high validity, extremely higher then chance, under field conditions.

You say so, but the evidence is not compelling. (You and I have discussed this at length in the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. All who are interested may draw their own conclusions from our debate.)


Quote:

I am not sure of what research you are speaking about in regards to sophisticated countermeasures and their detection?

Gino is no doubt referring to the studies by Honts et al., which are referenced in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.


Quote:

Although Drew is an expert in Forensic Toxicology, his expert status is not established under his connections with the FBI.  George has already openly admitted that he is the one who gave Drew this status on this site.

What you're referring to here is my statement (in response to a question in the message thread Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge) that it is I who described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top polygraph expert on the AntiPolygraph.org home page. As I explained there, I did so on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the scientific principles underlying polygraphy. Whether one agrees with my characterization or not, I think it remains fair to describe Dr. Richardson as a polygraph expert.