Skeptic

You stand corrected on a couple of comments:

First let's take your CM statement.  I have no doubt CM's can cause physiological changes during the course of a polygraph examination.  My contention is that a competent examiner can and will detect CM's (turn off the clock Drew).  We (polygraph examiners) have and continue to demonstrate it regularly.  I know Drew would like a little lab coat and white room to do his test but face reality, the important work is in the field.

Regarding specific issue testing (which is what I do).  Your coveted NAS study (which I have no regard for) states something to the effect that specific issue testing is "far above chance" but less than perfect.  Is far above chance 90%, 95%, 98%.   I think I would take any one of those numbers to the bank.  Let's even concede 85%, still pretty damn good.  

Let me caveat this next statement so your co-horts don't take this out of context.  The most recent (and more recent) shuttle disasters were horrendous.  America lost a lot of great astronauts in both instances.  The shuttle and the technology driving those shuttles is awesome.  The people working on them are extraordinarily bright.  Were the shuttles 100%?  Obviously not.  Would I volunteer to ride the next shuttle to space?  In a heartbeat.  Anytime you factor in the human element you've got room for error.  Polygraph is no different.  It's pretty damn good but face it, nothing's perfect.

I guess my long winded point really takes a jab at the scientific community.  They of all people should know that nothing is 100%.  Unfortunately you get whiners like George who claimed to have been wronged.  And none of us truly know why George failed his  polygraph, do we? ;)