I recently wrote a message to Doug Williams and had no response... it really goes for others against polygraph testing as well.

The authors of this site antipolygraph.org and sites like polygraph.com are, in a sense, extremists.  They have chosen a new path by authoring these sites with indifference to the past beliefs.

If a medical doctor advised you that based on medically proven instruments you have a serious condition would you believe them? or would you call them a "liar"?

If you went in for an exam and wanted to get the most accurate results could, would you modify your breathing, squeeze your muscles, stand, sit, burp, or pause, or anything else to alter results that could be important to your health?  I doubt it.  Could you? I doubt it.  Even if you tried, it would be obvious, or not relevent to the results.
=================
Here is the message sent to Doug Williams...

Hello Sir:

Thanks for taking the time to read me email.

I would like to start by telling you I am NOT a polygrapher nor was I
stung by one.

My question for you is how you completely alienated the polygraph
machine so abruptly.  I'm not asking why.  But how.  What became of
all the persons potentially three-thousand (3000) of them - whom you
polygraphed?  What about the ones YOU called liars?

Did you approach these persons jobs, go back to the courts, confront
people families to tell them they may not be "liars" after
all?

After all, three-thousand is a lot of grief you may have caused in
the world for something you don't believe in.

I have looked at your site and see you sitting on your nice
Harley-Davidson in front of a nice house... is this from money from
selling books?      If you have all this time to write books and do TV
news spots against the poltgraph, how is it you may not be finding
the time to remedy YOUR untrustworthy polygraph results for your 3000
exams conducted?

I actually do not expect an answer.  I'm sure you and your maker have
some serious discussions to figure out your destination...

  Catch-22...

The maker uses a polygraph from an examiner who believes in
scientific results (the same types of results that medical doctors
use everyday to save lives).
      
The maker read a book from someone who potentially called 3000 people
a liar (and told them to hold their breath and squeeze there
sphincter).

I appreciate your time and concern.  God bless those 3000 families.
(You may have affected more people (3000) than died 9/11/01 - God
bless all those families as well).

Anthony L.
-- 

As far as the polygraph being even remotely compared to ligitimate medical practice is entirely insane.  Give us a break.  You cannot make any rational comparison between the two.  As far as criticizing Doug Williams, maybe you should give him credit for actually standing up and blowing the whistle about polygraphs.  If he is making money from his book, great for him.  He deserves it.  You don't walk in his shoes, so his reason for doing what he does is of no significance. I for one am grateful for what he is doing and wish both him and George the very best.   I think it is an absolute shame that more polygraphists don't come clean about the asininity behind the polygraph.

Great tie-in to 9/11, I guess.

Quote:

No. The polygraph has not been "proven" not to work. It's more correct to say that it hasn't been proven to work in CQT screenings due to inability to establish ground truth.

For that matter proving a negative is nearly always impossible. Even Miss Cleo hasn't been "proven" to not be psychic.

-Marty

Quote:


Of course it's not wrong.  My estimate of Mr. Larussa's post is that he was not a polygrapher and had no real understanding that a polygrapher's job is to get you to lie on the controls. Do you think pointing that out to him is out of school? I wasn't criticising him for not knowing that since the polygraph community tries to limit public awareness of this. That is hardly empty rhetoric.

-Marty

Quote:
Johannes Leachwin,

It may seem non-intuitive, but it is indisputable FACT that in a PLCQT poly, a polygrapher anticipates and hopes the examinee will lie on the controls in order to get an accurate and distinct reading from the relevants to determine if the examinee is truthful on them. I suggest you get a book or two written by and for polygraphers themselves if you find the numerous links here to outside sources not credible. Once you understand what and why they do this it will make much more sense. I have done so. What they do is well documented but unless YOU are a polygrapher they are certainly not going to tell you. Perhaps you should take some responsibility yourself (I quite agree with your general points about that) and do a bit of research.

[added]
A couple of other points. R/I polys (a very old type of poly which most polygraphers consider to be inferior) does not ask the examiner to use this deception on the controls - since there are no controls per se. Also the GKT (CIT), widely used forensically in Japan, also does not require this deception on the part of the examiner. Further, it has the best scientific basis but the GKT is not applicable to screening. However, the PLCQT is by far the most common screening type polygraph used.

BTW, the "Client" usually refers to the entity for whom the polygraph is done. I assume from context you really meant the examinee.

-Marty