Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:



No, I don't have to admit any such thing.

Your offer seems to be rooted in your own blind faith in the "test," and as such was a bonehead move. 

Polygraph is biased against the truthful. Only the most devout of Polygraph Scientology Kool-Aid drinkers would sit for the "test" with everything at stake.

Count yourself lucky they didn't take you up on it. 

Such a stunt could have blown up in your face.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 12:27am:


Ark, I could easily drop a half-dozen names of well-known  polygraph professionals that would surely stun a lot of rank-and-file APA loyalists, but lets review some numbers instead...

The APA has nearly 3,000 members. Of that total, only about 500 bother to vote in APA elections.

When I ran for president-elect in 2014, I received 15% of the vote.

When I ran for president-elect in 2015, I received 28% of the vote.

In this year's race for that office, I expect to get 40% of the vote, and clinch the post in 2017.

Based on the backchannel support I've personally received, my core constituency includes two of the fastest-growing categories of the APA membership: international members and women.

I am least popular with the older white male APA establishment types, but those blowhards don't have the influence they used to.

My sense is that more and more APA members have an open mind and a realistic attitude about the "test." It seems an increasing number of those progressives, as I call them, are sick of the usual cadre of indu$try-insider re$earcher$, home-grown validity studies, and make-believe science.

My three-point platform of consumer protection (to curtail polygraph victimization), independent research with oversight (to include an ongoing countermeasure challenge series), and equality for APA members is steadily gathering momentum.

Does that help to answer your question?

Ark, when I joined the APA in 2004, its primary goal, as stated directly below the organization's mission statement, was this:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

Those words have always struck a chord with me, and that goal had been in place for decades.

But last year, the evidenced-based hipsters who run the APA -- and manage the current narrative -- chose to abandon that most noble guiding principle, scrubbing it from the APA web site.

It seems the illuminati who run the APA dog-and-pony show have chosen to take their act in a bold new direction.

Clearly, their values are not my values.

Ex Member wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 2:55am:

Raymond, 
Maybe you didn't notice this question. It was sincerely asked. Do you have a published paper on this? I'd like to learn more.

is there anyone  fighting in government at this time for taking away the mandatory polygraphs.  they are no chances of anyone surviving a charge with polygraphs having a 80/20 chance of passing.  you will almost be assured of failing at some points. If so i want to get involved who do you contact.  the sex offender program in texas is really screwed up.

Mandatory polygraph isn't going anywhere.  The system, as it was designed, works.  Now there is a key term here, "as it was designed."   

That is the problem.  Like many things, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The system in Texas is not run, as it was designed.  It is run in such a way, that the sex offender polygraph industry is widely unregulated by the state or by responsible overseers.   

The Texas PCSOT industry is pretty much run by JPCOT.  JPCOT is run, primarily by The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners.  They will deny this, but I have evidence that puts their denials in the garbage can, in the form of their own newsletters, emails and their actions.   

Maybe this will be the subject matter of the next video.   

Bottom line.  The industry is corrupt to the core, in Texas and at its highest levels.  When you are told that "you have to go to this examiner, or else, I would be very suspicious about that.  Especially if that examiner or office is that of Richard Wood.  Sorry Richard, no one should trust an office of "experienced examiners" that had a 45% inconclusive rate, at any time, and made no public recognition of it, or announced any corrective actions to fix whatever the problem was; though I can only think of two reasons why someone could ever have a 45% inconclusive rate.  Either 

A, you suck that bad

or 

B, you were double dipping.

Even notice that they never challenge me on that inconclusive rate number?  As yourself.  Why is that?  After all, if I am lying, this is libel.  Is it not?

The reason why they won't challenge me, is because it is the truth and I can prove it with their own admissions.

Anyway, you want the truth about what goes on here in Texas, I am the guy to ask.

Mek, you have no idea just how messed up it is.  Sadly, no one cares, and as such, there is little that can be done to mix it, because no one is checking behind us, and the foxes are running the henhouse.