200+ days and still no takers!

What are the polygraph "professionals" afraid of?

I am innocent and paid 350.00 to prove my innocence.  I thought the polygraph was a legitimate source and soon found out how inaccurate it really is.

It had shown that I was being deceitful by 99%.  

What a joke the test is and what a waste of money.  

Please, if you are innocent do not take this test.

you george...we are sooooooooooooooooo scared of you

Quote:


As we approach the 300th day of Dr. Richardson's countermeasure challenge, it is abundantly clear that our friends in the polygraph community are indeed running scared.

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


Although it's nice to be missed, I suppose I should point out that few people "do" much with me.  I'm sure several present and former bureaucrats tasked with managing me would swear to that   My absence from the message board is largely a reflection of two things: 

(1)  The NAS panel polygraph study and report is largely an exhaustive and comprehensive affirmation of much of what I have said for the last decade or so.  My opening statement made before the Senate several years ago would not be a bad executive summary for the 300 plus page NAS written report.  Aside from the continuing saga of the victimization of polygraph screening examinees and a historical perspective of the debate, there is not much I feel I can add to the story as already told.  Even the victimization story is perhaps bettered through the telling by the victims themselves.  Although I continue to follow the important work and goals of this site and its message board and do intend to follow up with commentary on same concerning a few issues raised by the NAS panel, I hope to spend available time with more comprehensive and substantive writing.  I am now discussing the parameters of one such work with a possible coauthor and an interested commercial publisher.  I’m further looking forward to several planned speaking engagements which I hope will serve in some small way to affect public policy leading to changes regarding polygraph screening both needed and justified following the release of the NAS report.

(2)  I and my colleagues at Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc. have been quite busy with casework, continued R&D, media relations, general business development and all the many other things which are part and parcel of a new technology company.  We are quite excited about various opportunities we see to assist in both very interesting individual cases as well as to participate in longer and more involved contracted work.  Although largely occupied with the aforementioned activities, I do look forward to continued discussion with you on matters of mutual interest.  Best Regards,

Drew Richardson

I think it is obvious why Drew's challenge is unanswered. The two possible outcomes of interest are assymetrical in impact. Since the polygraph is widely believed by the general public to be accurate and difficult to beat, the only outcome that would be widely reported would be if Drew showed countermeasures to be effective. The expected is not news.

Another factor is that the polygraph depends on the emotional response to material (guilt inducing) deception making Drew's challenge difficult. This is also what makes validating the polygraph essentially impossible.

This problem will likely become larger. There is often little difference between a naive, innocent person's response to the fear of being, incorrectly, thought a thief vs. a guilty person correctly discovered to be one. As the public becomes more aware of the deficiencies of the polygraph the former's response will likely increase and the latter's decrease for obvious psychological reasons.

-Marty

Polylawman,

Apparently you are as clueless now as before you attended those seminars.  I'd ask for your money back if I were you.  And I suppose it comes as no surprise to you that no one is buying your excuses for cowardice when it comes to accepting the countermeasure challenge.