wrote on May 19^th, 2002 at 7:47pm:

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

1.  There is data in Honts' studies of the examiners' ability to detect countermeasures.  Not just can't  but a certain statistical percentage.  Regardless, Gino did not specify which of the many studies he was using for this assertion and/or provide a cite for readers to check the truth of his statement.  If this is simply Gino’s opinion, then it should be noted as such.

2.  I am not discrediting Drew as a scientist and/or attacking him personally in any way.  I am simply pointing to the fact that he is an expert in Forensic Toxicology and too my knowledge only you have said he is one of the FBI's leading experts in polygraph.  Drew's logic is always welcome in my opinion. I think Drew has some vary valid and sound points when it comes to polygraph.  I agree with him on many issues.  Even if I don't agree with something Drew says, I can appreciate his differing view and agree to disagree with him on ones that I find no evidence for the need to change.  Some of my views have changed through discussions with him.

I’m not here to argue any further points with you.  It is quite evident from reading your posts on here as well as, http://archives.his.com/intelforum/threads4.html#04192 , http://archives.his.com/intelforum/msg02979.html ,and various other sites that your views will not change no matter what evidence is provided.