Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? (Read 6611 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Sep 25th, 2007 at 4:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Hi Anti and Pro folks alike. This is a document/Affidavit which is public domain that swears before a judge that Antipolygraph's own Drew Richardson is a phony FBI Polygraph Examiner. Interestingly, Mr. Richardson has long boasted his FBI Examiner credentials and wealth of expertise and experience as a launch pad for his activism against polygraph. If the document and it's contents are true, than Mr. Richardson owes the people of this site both an explanation and an apology for committing such fraud. Have you no honor sir? Bellow is a cut and paste version of the attached file.
Yours, Paradiddle









CHARLES ELIAS, C.F.L.S.
Attorney at Law
4030 Palos Verdes Drive North, Suite 108
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274-2526
Telephone:      (310) 541-4141
Facsimile:      (310) 544-3971
E-mail:      ce@alum.mit.edu
State Bar Number 046686

Attorney for Petitioner

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In re the Marriage of:
ANTHONY MICHAEL MAYFIELD,
     Petitioner,
                             and,
KAREN AIKO MAYFIELD,
     Respondent.
CASE NO. YD 045 663
(Transferred for all purposes to the Central District, Dept 22, The Honorable Michael Linfield, Judge)


REPLY DECLARATION of mark johnson to RESPONSIVE DECLARATION of drew richardson

DATE:      August 10, 2005
     TIME:      8:45 A.M.
     DEPT.:      CE 22

     I, mark johnson, declare as follows:
1.I am a former FBI agent.  From 1990 to 1995 I was a field agent in the FBI’s Washington Field Office.  From 1995 to 1998 I was a Supervising Special Agent in the Polygraph Unit at FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
2.From 1990-1998, in order to become certified as a FBI polygraph examiner an agent had to first complete the 3 to 4 month introductory program at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in Aniston, Alabama.  During this time, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute gave training to future polygraph examiners for the FBI, NSA, DOD, Postal Service, Border Patrol, Army, Navy and Marines.  Sometime after 1995, the CIA also sent examiner candidates to this school.
3.In the FBI, after completing the introductory program at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, a candidate for certification was required to conduct at least twenty (20) polygraph examinations under the supervision of a FBI certified polygraph examiner.  After the requisite examinations were concluded, a Supervising Special Agent at the Polygraph Unit, FBI Headquarters reviewed the paperwork generated by the examinations.  Additionally, the FBI certified polygraph examiner who supervised the candidate’s examinations made a written recommendation to the FBI Polygraph Unit Chief as to whether the candidate should become certified as a FBI certified polygraph examiner.  This process generally took six months to a year to complete.
4.During this time, I reported to the FBI Polygraph Unit Chief, James K. Murphy.  Mr. Murphy assigned me to supervise Mr. Drew Richardson’s required twenty (20) polygraph examinations after Mr. Richardson had completed the introductory program at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute so that he could become certified. 
5.I am not exactly sure as to when Mr. Murphy assigned me to supervise Mr. Richardson’s required twenty (20) polygraph examinations.  My best estimate is that it was sometime between 1991 to 1994.
6.I remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed.  After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique.  I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson.  I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision.  Mr. Richardson cancelled each test. 
7.As a Field agent, I did not have the authority to decide whether Mr. Richardson would receive a FBI polygraph examiner certification.  This authority was vested with the Unit Chief, Mr. Murphy. 
8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI.  I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum.  I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts. 
9.Mr. Murphy adopted my assessment of Mr. Richardson.  Drew Richardson never received a certification as an FBI Polygraph Examiner and was never authorized by the FBI to conduct polygraph examinations.
10.Dated this ________________at Leesburg, Virginia, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.


     __________________________________
     Mark Johnson
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6166
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #1 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 4:14pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dr. Richardson described his credentials before the U.S. Senate thus:

Quote:
My name is Dr. Drew Campbell Richardson. I am a Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have spent the vast majority of my professional career as a scientist within the FBI Laboratory. In that capacity I have worked in the areas of chemistry, toxicology, polygraph research, and hazardous materials response.


and before the National Academy of Sciences thus:

Quote:
I suppose it's only fair that I introduce myself and give you a little bit about my perspective. I have recently retired from the FBI. I was an agent for twenty-five years. I am a research physiologist, although I spent the vast majority of my career as a scientist in the FBI working as a physical scientist, and that is as a chemist and a toxicologist. You no doubt in the next hour, a bit, perhaps, will get that perspective from me. I was involved in polygraph research specifically for the FBI. My group associations -- agency associations -- largely have been with the FBI as well as DoDPI.

My formal involvement in polygraph research was in the late '80s and early '90s. I have not been involved since that time, formally. It's interesting that although I've had a day job in the last ten years since that time, I've been something of an unwitting, if not reluctant, social activist, I suppose. I've not looked for that role, but I've found myself in the position of having been contacted by several hundred people presenting either themselves or others as victims of some sort of polygraph, generally polygraph screening, and generally applicant polygraph screening.


Contrary to your assertion, Dr. Richardson has not misrepresented his credentials.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #2 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 5:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle,

I for one would take Drew Richardsons word and reputation long before some trade school trained BS artist polygrapher. And you found a document, unsigned and invalid, real court documents are public record, with the stamps and signatures that make them valid. Do these people know you have their private documents ? You could have invaded someones privacy and if they are fake (forging) court documents well,  thats illegal don't you know !  For all we know you could be trying to steal someones identity. Again questionable activities by a questionable practitioner of a psuedo-science.  Like this wasn't expected.


Swing & a Miss .......
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #3 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 6:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter,

Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment.  Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense’s Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two “qualified” FBI examiners in conducting field examinations.  I say “qualified” in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau’s Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner’s failing the DoDPI basic examiner training.   At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner.  I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner.  The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some “real-world” experience and presumably allow for a better research product. 

After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner.  To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence.  I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination.  I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public.  With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me.  The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams.  I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy’s (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI’s Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters.  I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy.  It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau.  My reason for leaving the Bureau’s polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing.  He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion.  I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in. 

Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #4 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 6:44pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter wrote on Sep 25th, 2007 at 5:25pm:
Paradiddle,

I for one would take Drew Richardsons word and reputation long before some trade school trained BS artist polygrapher. And you found a document, unsigned and invalid, real court documents are public record, with the stamps and signatures that make them valid. Do these people know you have their private documents ? You could have invaded someones privacy and if they are fake (forging) court documents well,  thats illegal don't you know !  For all we know you could be trying to steal someones identity. Again questionable activities by a questionable practitioner of a psuedo-science.  Like this wasn't expected.


Swing & a Miss .......

 Sheesh George----so much for decorum---Eos called me a trade school BS artist (wahhh). Ad hom attacks aside, perhaps the crew here is projecting some disappointment over "Dr." Richardson's (now) questionable mastery of polygraph. I recall him once insinuating that he administered scores and scores of polygraph tests and that he regretted such. Uh huh, yeah. So, that leaves me with one question. With his pathetic performance at DODPI (not exactly MIT as you all would say), his irrelevant experience in Toxicology and waste, what exactly did he do at DODPI lab? Perhaps the Feds placed him in the position of Supervisor of Making Coffee and Replacing Ink in Polygraph Instrument Printers and Pen Bottles (ink is "toxic" you know)?
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #5 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 6:57pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
EosJupiter,

Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment.  Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense’s Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two “qualified” FBI examiners in conducting field examinations.  I say “qualified” in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau’s Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner’s failing the DoDPI basic examiner training.   At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner.  I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner.  The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some “real-world” experience and presumably allow for a better research product.  

After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner.  To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence.  I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination.  I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public.  With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me.  The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams.  I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy’s (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI’s Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters.  I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy.  It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau.  My reason for leaving the Bureau’s polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing.  He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion.  I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.  

Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.



"Several Exams"? What exactly "Dr.", constitutes "several" exams----and did you actually ---or did you not recieve certification as a FBI polygraph Examiner? You see, whether you are a researcher, lab technician, expert witness---whatever, a person must be qualified to administer the practice for which you are deemed an "expert." Doesn't that make sense Drew? If you were, say, an expert witness Behavioral Specialist, than perhaps that person should be an actual psychologist, wouldn't you say?
As for your recollection of your possible certification, I am reminded of Alberto Gonzales' recall abilities. Is it the QC examiner who was so bad, or was it you who were so bad? Maybe you are right and I am wrong. Tell us oh master of polygraph. It is convenient for you to mock DODPI's training as you were on the "fast track" so to speak to research. I doubt your co-horts and supervisors placed much faith in your research due to , among other things, your "phoned in" effort and alleged shoddy attendence record.

Incidentally Drew, no one has ever questioned your IQ, just your actual experience and stated expertise in regards to Polygraph.
« Last Edit: Sep 25th, 2007 at 8:36pm by Paradiddle »  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Black_Bird_Ops
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Sep 22nd, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #6 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
This is a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway study in action - watch the actual video of  DACA's peer reviewed studies and learn how they conduct their studies!!!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8534038772412420905

Dr. Capps and Robert Andrews would be proud of this demonstration of DACA's scientific method in action.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #7 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:07pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Black Bird OOPs, that was hilarious. Don't you have some ashtrays in the break room to empty?
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #8 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:39pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

I have watched this board for years and I also recall somewhere that Drew mentions administering hundreds of polygraphs.  A phoney  - all I can say is I am in shock & awe. 

Paradiddle - What else are you going to pull out of your hat? lol
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #9 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 11:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Eos, sorry your bubble burst.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #10 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 1:10am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
EosJupiter,

Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment.  Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense’s Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two “qualified” FBI examiners in conducting field examinations.  I say “qualified” in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau’s Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner’s failing the DoDPI basic examiner training.   At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner.  I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner.  The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some “real-world” experience and presumably allow for a better research product.  

After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner.  To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence.  I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination.  I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public.  With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me.  The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams.  I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy’s (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI’s Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters.  I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy.  It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau.  My reason for leaving the Bureau’s polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing.  He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion.  I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.  

Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.


Okay, so let me get this straight...

Dr. Drew Richardson, the man who testified on capital hill as the self proclaimed "FBI's TOP polygraph expert," actually administered MAYBE one or two tests after the completion of polygraph school.  Then, as a result of either his less then steller performance (or piss-poor attitude?) during those examinations was encouraged by the FBI's polygraph director to seek employment elseware?

Gee, and I thought there were minimum certification requirements in the federal government.  I thought the feds require among other things that a polygraph school graduate administer a minimum number of exams before his agency can certify him...

soooo...

It seems the infamous Dr. Drew Richardson, who testifies all over the place (including congress) as an "expert federal polygraph examiner" was not only NEVER CERTIFIED to conduct polygraph examinations, but was basically FIRED from the program after conducting only ONE OR TWO TESTS?

Wow, think of the tens of thousands of $$$ the FBI wasted training this loser.  As a taxpayer, I believe I am appalled... Angry

Gee, finally this is all making sense.  I have met people like this Drew Richardson.  Guys who can't make it in the field, and spend the rest of their lives blaming everyone other than themselves.  People who's huge egos just can't accept the fact they failed at something....

You know,  I find myself feeling sorta sorry for this fellow.... Embarrassed
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #11 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 2:26am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
In Drew's defense, I have heard that while at DODPI, he was miserable----being in a place other than where he desired, and being completely indifferent to his assignment. I too have spent small amounts of time working jobs that left me feeling empty and unfulfilled. I have heard that Drew is a gifted man, but when he isn't passionate about something, he is selfish and lazy. I would feel quite sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that he has toured around like a rock musician taking cheap shots at something that he didn't even take a close look at beyond his own arrogance. Any fool can burn down a barn. It appears that he didn't know a goddamn thing about barns though.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #12 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 2:34am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Nonombre

When it comes to intelligence, you and the other polygraphers who visit this site can't carry Dr. Richardson's jock. Your added hominy attacks on the anti's is the best you can do and call it a debate. Then all of you accuse the anti's of doing it. Quite a debate. Huh? Hell, I admit that I don't know enough about the poly to effectively debate it. All I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #13 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 2:45am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Twoblock wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 2:34am:
Nonombre

When it comes to intelligence, you and the other polygraphers who visit this site can't carry Dr. Richardson's jock. Your added hominy attacks on the anti's is the best you can do and call it a debate. Then all of you accuse the anti's of doing it. Quite a debate. Huh? Hell, I admit that I don't know enough about the poly to effectively debate it. All I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.



Are you kidding me.  I wouldn't get near his jock let alone carry it! RU related to d-head?  Its actually funny you admitted you DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT POLYGRAPHS.  Why then don't you go find something else to do or maybe you just want to talk circles and spit out what everyone else is saying.  Did you consult with Eos on that?  You must be a follower. 

Brain manipulations.....lol - does your goat call you mama? Kiss
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?
Reply #14 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 3:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Twoblock wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 2:34am:
Nonombre

When it comes to intelligence, you and the other polygraphers who visit this site can't carry Dr. Richardson's jock. Your added hominy attacks on the anti's is the best you can do and call it a debate. Then all of you accuse the anti's of doing it. Quite a debate. Huh? Hell, I admit that I don't know enough about the poly to effectively debate it. All I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.



Eos, do you claim this man to be your lawful.........

Twoblock impresses me with his grit------ok, no not really. I am afraid that he has fallen prey to fawning over Drew Richardson the niche celebrity, not Drew Richardson the actual man. When this site exposes a phony PHD Polygraph Celeb-----I wait and see----as I am disgusted with such phoniness and you won't see me defending idiocy. Anti-folks seem to embrace their "reluctant" hero without wondering if they really know who they revel. I think we know why he was so reluctant. Let this be a lesson to those who sanctify their leaders and their "expert" advocates.
« Last Edit: Sep 26th, 2007 at 3:32am by Paradiddle »  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X