J.B.,


Quote:

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.

In Honts et al.'s countermeasure studies, polygraphers were not able to detect polygraph countermeasures at better than chance levels.



Quote:

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.

You attempted to discredit Drew's opinion on the advisability of using countermeasures by attacking his status as a polygraph expert, rather than presenting any rational argument.


Quote:

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.

You haven't brought any evidence to the current discussion.