J.B.,


Quote:

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

Had you bothered to read the referenced studies by Honts et al., you would not have asked such a question.


Quote:

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.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) noted in a 1997 letter to the director of the FBI Laboratory Division that "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs." To the best of my knowledge, Drew's only peer-reviewed article on polygraphy ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, 1993, 15, 263-67) is not a research study, but dealt with ethics. He co-authored it with Professor John Furedy, but the FBI forbade him from being cited as a coauthor. Nonetheless, Dr. Richardson's doctoral research (funded by the NSA polygraph unit) was on a polygraph-related topic. Dr. Richardson also served with the FBI Laboratory's (now defunct) polygraph research unit. I find it curious that you would question his qualifications as an expert in the field of polygraphy.

In any event, Dr. Richardson's criticisms of CQT polygraphy are not based on any argument from authority, but are instead grounded in reason and an understanding of the scientific method. Your ad hominem argument does nothing to undermine them.