Dr. Richardson,
Thank you for addressing TwoBlock's questions. His post on equipment calibration didn't just come out of left field; it came from some other ball park. It's as if we're all playing football, and he shows up with his catcher's mitt, a hockey mask, and a basketball jersey. In a way, I can't really blame him since this topic has strayed so far from where it started. I read his post, considered it, and concluded that it was simply too tedious to respond. But you did so quite well. I was interested in your response about the CQT's validity. (By focusing on the validity of the CQT rather than the polygraph in general, you seemingly imply that other test methods have more legitimacy . . .) However, a discussion on the validity of a particular polygraph test method is also another topic entirely.
I was actually waiting for TwoBlock to mention you in response to my last post, since he had mentioned you previously with his "carry his jock" proclamation of you as the be-all, end-all expert on all things polygraph.
As a fellow (former) polygrapher, I needn't question your having "been there, done that" qualifications. And I needn't talk about lab studies vs. lab studies or lab studies vs. real world to you. That's a waste of time.
I do, however, have a couple of questions for you which I think relate to this evolving topic that has so whimsically gone from a question about test data analysis for a school report to where we are now. Of course, I have myself to blame as much as any other for this evolution, and I regret that many people won't even read this discussion because they won't be interested by the topic "school report."
Anyhow, here are my questions. I don't know if you will address them, but I do feel reasonably certain that you will read them, since you will be curious to investigate any responses to your most recent posts.
1. As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
2. Tell me, honestly, despite any biases you may have now that you are on the "anti-" side, are you unaware of the most recent developments made in the area of countermeasure detection as taught by DoDPI and other reputable polygraph schools? You obviously know what I'm talking about when I mention normal habituation, and, if you were any kind of polygrapher at all, I know you know what I'm talking about when I say "atypical responses," especially when viewed globally over the course of an entire exam, i.e., as a pattern rather than in isolation. Likewise, I think you should know the difference between legitimate response and an anomaly, particularly when differentiating between a normal response within the generally accepted response window vs. an abnormally protracted response, again viewed globally rather than simply during one isolated incident.
These things may be out of the average reader's realm of understanding, and one might avoid answering these questions by using the excuse that we are already off-topic and that my questions are themselves out of left field. However, since you showed up carrying your own jock this time
![Wink Wink](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif)
, it would be interesting to read your answers. Regards.