Skeptic wrote:

Quote:

Thus far, no polygrapher has had the guts to even try the challenge, despite it being outstanding for more than two years.  I'd guessing you guys have more to lose than Mr. Maschke, and wouldn't be surprised if, upon deciding to take up the challenge, other polygraphers discourage you from doing so.

I agree. Moreover, if the challenge is done with just any polygrapher, and he goes down in flames, the polygraph community will surely attempt to hang its hat on the weak “examiner inexperience” argument.

For this reason, Drew was very careful in the structure of his challenge. Please note the second to last sentence:

Quote:

I would suggest that the polygraph examiners participating come from the ranks of federal polygraph instructors or operators, leading civilian polygraphers or any other group whose credentials and experience would be deemed impeccable in polygraph circles.

Quote:

All the psychological experts I see being quoted in the reading room, have never even run a test. They know nothing of polygraph other than what they get from a book.

John Furedy has never conducted a test? Drew Richardson has never conducted a test? David Lykken has never conducted a test? There may be places that you can structure your arguments upon made-up facts. This is not one of them.

You admit that you need to get more experience before taking the challenge—I’d say that it’s safe from that to say that all three of these esteemed individuals have each conducted more polygraph “tests” than you have.


Quote:

There are many points that I have made that have gone unreplied to because you focus on only what you can attack, rather than a good point.

If anyone is guilty of this behavior, it is you. For example, you were called out numerous times to support the statement that you made that cops in states that polygraph are less corrupt than those in states that do not.

Numerous posters asked you to back that up with some facts. We’re still waiting.