Dear Mr. Levi,

Thank you for sharing your experience with the producers of "Lie Detector" here. I note that you had also posted this to Pax TV's message board for its "Lie Detector" show, but that your post there has been deleted:

http://messageboard.pax.tv/index.cfm?frmid=51

Note that "Dr." Ed Gelb obtained his "Ph.D." degree from an unaccredited diploma mill:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml

Thenolieguy4u,

Conclusions and assumptions must be your forte.  No where in the post from iralevi did I note the mention of prior visits or mentions of first visits to antipolygraph.org, nor did I note the mention of countermeasures or computerized polygraph testing.  Your assumptions can only lead one to believe that you must have some vested interest (quite possibly income) in polygraph testing.  Your post also would lead me to believe that you aggressively defend this type of "science" due to some form of brainwashing which you have undergone.  Please provide your ethnic background in order that some perveyor of stupidity such as yourself can make assumptions based on name alone.

As I have posted before in lowly terms, less than 100% is worth a bucket of shit.  The readings recorded by the machine are completely scientific, no argument there.  However, the interpretation is purely "art."  A heart monitor can be interpreted as showing heart activity when in actuality it is nothing more that residual electrical activity in a deceased person.  Ask any medical practicioner worth his/her salt.  Polygraph interpretors generally have little if no medical or scientific background.  If they did there would be more stringent educational and licensure requirements.

If you have any information to combat the truth provided on this site by all means post.  If you prefer a childish attack based on false information and assumptions, your opinion is unnecessary.  I could make all the assumptions in the world based on your post, however I prefer and demand further information before out and out calling someone on the carpet.

By the way you forgot the other possiblity...FALSE POSITIVE...idiot.

     Hello Again,

   Okay, Let's ask Ira !  But then again Ira's ability to tell the truth is in itself in question !  What method would you recommend we use to explore that ? Any substitutes for polygraph ?

   From my research on the Web I found that the CIA is begging to hire polygraph examiners, and they had no age limit, which is rare in federal hiring.  Further, of the people who do this for a living, they seem to have solid backgrounds themselves.  I just can't believe they they would waste their careers on something that just did not work, or get them to a place of confidence in determining if someone was telling the truth.  I don't think such testing is 100% accurate 100% of the time, but do think it meets the level of statistical significance.  Further, even if you don't like the people who do these tests; their attitudes or bedside manner, the technology appears to be improving which is noteworthy in and of itself.  I looked into this field a long time ago, and thought it would be interesting work.  However, one must usually be a Police Detective or mid to upper level rank in law enforcement to be sponsored to such a school, or well placed in the Intel community to go to such a school.  I found that private examiner types exist, but usually come into the private sector from the former two catagories. 

From my reading of this site, many or most of the contributors are those who are convicted sex offenders, or disgruntled individuals who were not hired whether they passed their test or not.  There are also mulitiple others who are prospective future test subjects; all of whom admittedly want to "Cheat" to get in.  I would also assume they would apply the same mindset to future endeavors as well.  Character is an issue in life, and they seem to need a larger dose of it.  It made me wonder what measure they would have for hiring of others which would provide a better screening ability for we taxpayers who foot the bill ?

Further, you seem over protective of Ira for some reason.  He knew what he was getting into.  You accuse me of "Presuming" when it is you who take him at face value with your zealot belief that it MUST BE a False Positive.  Is this type of testing EVER right ?  I think there are just too many confirmed charts to say it has no value.  Ira is free to go out in the open marketplace and get his own test done, and maybe use this site's countermeasures too.    

In closing, and despite the strong anti-polygraph views you hold; the public is split on this one, as well as our political system.  We are uncomfortable with this technology in the wrong hands, but know we need it or fully perceive we do.  Only a substitute showing equal or superior capabilities would replace it.  Focus your efforts on finding that replacement, as the world will beat a path to your door for having a better system.  Like the old saying Lead, Follow, or get Out of the Way ! You have no answers, only questions.  You and those like you come off like a snot nosed little kid who everyone gets tired of and eventually ignores or wants punished.  Grow Up and enter the real world.  There is Truth and Deception in this world, and there are those who work in that field with equal dedication to whatever you do for a living.  Everytime I hear or read about you guys dissing these people, I wonder what it is that you do that is so perfect professionally.  I would venture to say that whatever it is you do, these folks probably have a better resume than you, even prior to their entering their field, than you do yours.  Am I asssuming---Yes.  Why, because those folks are time tested and proven (Government Circles), and you are an unknown unproven entity to me and those on this site.    

I rest well tonight knowing that I have intelectually bitch slapped you, and only wish I could do it in person.

TheNoLieGuy4U 

nolieguy:I am a little confused. I don't remember saying that I had visited the site prior to appearing on the show. I had no reason to because I intended to tell the truth and  believe it or not, had faith in Dr.Gelb's expertise, In fact, we were not informed that the focus of the show was a polygraph test until the day of filming. Prior to that , you are led to believe the show is about being falsely accused of something, where you get an opportunity to talk about the experience and how it affected you (a la DATELINE). A polygraph is not mentioned until the day before travel . But, again, I didn't have a major issue with it nor did I need any tactics to beat a polygraph because I believed that telling the truth was the way to beat it.Period.As for Nolieguy's comments, I have no reason for going on televison to talk about a very serious, 10-year old incident ,that almost devastated my life just to lie. So before you make assertions have some information. In fact, I do not believe that the show's guests are even given a real test. the entire test takes about ten minutes and Dr.Gelb repeats the same  questions 3 times in different ways and forces you to answer 1 question in particular "no" when  you actually want to say "yes". I believe that Dr.gelb and the show's creators arbitrarily pick a certain number to be found liars. since my post, I have been in contact with three other guests who had the same exact experience. What do I plan to do? well, my atttorney can answer that better than me. One option is definitely a class-action situation.Too soon to tell. As for your assumptions about my heritage: ira Levi is my real name but I am African-american.

Dear Mr. Levi,

You wrote, among other things:

Quote:


I have heard from another of the show's guests that "Dr." Gelb's polygraph examination took a total of only about ten minutes from hello to goodbye. The pre-test phase reportedly consisted of the examinee being handed a list of questions to read. Gelb then allegedly instructed the examinee to answer all questions "No" and then ran his polygraph charts. There was no post-test phase. The guest was only told of "Dr." Gelb's diagnosis when the show's host, Rolonda Watts, ambushed the guest with the accusation of being a liar on camera.

Not that polygraphy has any validity to begin with, but even by the generally accepted standards of the polygraph community, no "valid" examination can be conducted in so short a time. Ninety minutes is more typical.

It should be a great embarrassment to the polygraph community that one of its luminaries, a past president of the American Polygraph Association, is not only a phony Ph.D., but also appears to be conducting 10-minute polygraph "tests."

U. R. very funny!

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 9^th, 2005 at 5:45am:



Must be very typical for a polygrapher to make an assumption and then have his argument fall apart when his prejudicial instincts are proved wrong.