In an 11 July 2001 article titled, "Search for Truth: Condit, Police Haggle Over Polygraph," ACBNEWS.com uncritically reported the comments of polygraphers Paul K. Minor and Ed Gelb:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/condit_lietest010711.html


Regarding the Washington, DC police request that Rep. Gary Condit submit to a polygraph, ABCNEWS.com quotes Ed Gelb as saying:

"If he knows nothing about it, he won't have any trouble [passing a polygraph] no matter what you ask," Gelb said."

Gelb cannot know this. By his own admission in the article, polygraphy is no more than 89% accurate. But even that level of accuracy is entirely unsupported by peer reviewed scientific research. Moreover, polygraphy has an inherent bias against the truthful, as many who frequent this message board have learned by personal experience.

Former FBI polygrapher Paul K. Minor also makes an untrue statement in the "Polygraph FAQ" at the end of the article. He says, "It's easier to beat [the polygraph] if you're real stupid. It's difficult for intelligent people because they can't control their thoughts. Generally, the more you try, the harder it gets to beat the test."

This is utter nonsense. The key to beating a polygraph test is to 1) recognize the difference between the relevant and the control questions (being stupid doesn't help) and 2) to subtly augment one's physiological responses when answering the control questions. This is described in detail in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

ABC News made the mistake of only speaking to people who rely on polygraphy for a living. You can help set them straight on polygraphy by sending a note (you might point them to AntiPolygraph.org) via their web-based feedback form at:

http://abcnews.go.com/service/help/abccontact.html