George,

You wrote:

Quote:

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.)

That they may.  I think the evidence of the contradictory view to yours is overwhelmingly obvious.

You wrote:

Quote:

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.

Where does the evidence in this research study support that examiners' can't detect sophisticated countermeasures?

You wrote:

Quote:

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.

Who, besides you, has bestowed Drew with expert status in polygraph?  What peer reviewed scientific 'physiological research' has Drew conducted and more importantly that which was specific to polygraph.  Again, I respect Drew as a scientist.  He has an extensive amount of experience in Forensic Toxicology.  The prior remotely relates to polygraph and alone does not meet the normal criteria for being an expert in polygraph.