On a recent radio show self proclaimed polygraph examiner John L. Grogan showed up to be interviewed about the new polygraph show in the news.  Instead, the callers turned on Grogan exposing him as a former P.I. who had his license yanked, as well as other permits in 2002, and simply re-invented himself as an Instant Examiner.  His PEOA / Polygraph Examiners of America is also a fraud organization which props up a pyramid scheme of his creating new examiners.  Grogan claimed on the show that he simply "retired" as a P.I., which was a blatent lie.  These are the guys that have ruined that profession, and I say if this profession is to exist it MUST be licensed and controlled. 

I find it amusing that you characterize John Grogan as a "pseudo-polygraph examiner." It's kind of like accusing someone of not being a "real" fortuneteller. After all, all polygraphers are practitioners of a pseudoscientific fraud.

That said, your idea of licensing and control for the polygraph profession is not a bad one. How about for starters we hold polygraphers personally liable for their results? Any polygrapher who requires examinees to sign a liability waiver before being polygraphed obviously lacks confidence in his or her abilities and ought to be drummed out of the "profession," right?

I find it amusing that you characterize John Grogan as a "pseudo-polygraph examiner." It's kind of like accusing someone of not being a "real" fortuneteller. After all, all polygraphers are practitioners of a pseudoscientific fraud.

  I don't really believe you find this amusing at all !!, and the fortune teller anology hasn't held up when you used it in the past, as you continue to repeat the same mantras over and over again.  Were you once a hari krishna or something ?  You claim computer polygraph is a pseudoscience once again, but you have never explained how and why our nation's oldest research facility The Johns Hopkins University via the wiz kids of the Applied Physics Laboratory managed to create a mathamatical Algorithm for objective scoring ?  Further, that there are no less than five or more other such algorithms.  Were all of these computer people / engineers / and Phd's fortune tellers too ?  Certainly they, more than a fuzzy headed farsi speaking unfulfilled former intelligence officer, are in a better position to say what is science than you, or many of those in the NAS who are dependant on Government jobs with security clearances (most requiring TES Testing), as at JHU / APL this was their tasking.   

your idea of licensing and control for the polygraph profession is not a bad one. How about for starters we hold polygraphers personally liable for their results? Any polygrapher who requires examinees to sign a liability waiver before being polygraphed obviously lacks confidence in his or her abilities and ought to be drummed out of the "profession," right?

Well, Glad to see we agree on licensing.  Further, polygraph examiners do carry insurance and if one can show they committed an error or omission in performing a test, then sue one.  To date though, I am not aware of a test where an Examiner found somone D.I. in a specific issue test wherein it could later be shown that some other person did the crime.  In other words, that the found D.I. subject was not in a 1st or 2nd party involvement and implicated.  Do you know of one ?  Further, the research I have heard spoken of as mentioned on this site is that False Negatives (Deceptive people perceived as Truthful) in specific issue testing is the rarest event in research.  Even Dr. David Lykken recognized the clarity of a guilty knowledge test, and he was a polygraph critic, and a far more fair minded one than you. 

Be aware that polygraph operators also read the discussions on this message board. If you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified (for example, the exact date of your polygraph examination). For better anonymity, use an anonymous proxy such as Proxify.com or the Tor anonymous Internet communication system. If you find this message board interesting, please tell a friend!

  You George, have placed this discussion board as a website regarding the polygraph issue site which is supposed to be fair.  Was your "outing" the names polygraph examiners a fair practice when you don't otherwise do so for anti-polygraph posters ?  Your claim of this being a public interest site on this polygraph topic should have some ethics too buster !!!  You have NOT played the role of being a claimed neutral moderator, but rather with those who sought to contribute to the site, you chose to rob them of their anonimity despite their contribution.  Should YOU be sued for the result to them of that ???   Is this site Insured for errors and ommissions   liability  ????   Didn't they too deserve the same rights as the other posters under their first amendment rights.  Having said this, I believe this should be a bench mark for avoiding such behavior in the future on your part.   

Any polygrapher who requires examinees to sign a liability waiver before being polygraphed obviously lacks confidence in his or her abilities and ought to be drummed out of the "profession," right?

Once Again !!  You are Wrong George, almost every profession has a release form associated with their profession thanks to a world full of lawyers.  You haven't lived in Holland that long that you don't know this about the U.S..  Computer Polygraph Examiners, who do testing according to standardized methods, actually have very high confidence in their charts when they see reactivity repeatedly on the same questions, this despite the examinees full and fair ability to have explained away that issue.  Drummed out of the profession ?  You know full well that the CIA, and other agencies, have an actual shortage of examiners to the point of actually waiving the age requirement for hiring, a rarity in Federal hiring.   

  Perhaps, in truth, it was the government who lacked confidence in YOUR abilities !!!  I still don't understand, as a former insider, how it is that you place ALL of your life's lack of desired employment or achievement on the polygraph.   

Is this readership to really believe that in a time where our nation is in the middle of a war with radical Islam, and the rarity of those in our nation who read, write, and speak both Persian and Arabic never in greater demand, that the polygraph was the ONLY thing that kept you out of Federal employment ????????  What a crock !!!!  There must be MORE to the story you either don't know, or have not chosen to share with us.  One thing is for sure,  without exception, nobody in the intelligence community ever had a greater chance to have made a contribution to their country at war than YOU George Maschke who had such crappy timing.  Your conduct in attacking your governments assets on this site as an intelligence tool is clearly NOT just an academic doing research, but rather the fixated bent mindset of an obsessed reject who wants revenge.  Most people on this site won't / or don't have a PhD as you do, but they move on and make a contribution where they can in life and stay positive.  I simply wouldn't even be surprised if you converted to Islam and asked for asylum in Iran or something in fulfillment of your going to the dark side.   

LALE,

If you have neither the time or intellect to read, go get a Hardy Boys book or something. Remember, guys like me actually made it through the process, and guys like you did not apparently.  I come here to lift up the spirits of the depressed I read about, and you and others remain wallowing in your pitty. Grow Up, as you Xer's need to pull yourself up by your boot straps.

TheNoLieGuy4U,

The only people claiming that polygraphic lie detection has any scientific basis are those with vested interests in polygraphy. There is broad consensus amongst scientists that polygraphy has no scientific basis. The fact that there are computerized scoring algorithms for polygraph "testing" doesn't mean that the underlying procedure has any scientific basis. Very much in the same way as computer-generated astrological chart readings have no scientific basis. Note that the National Academy of Sciences rubbished the "PolyScore" algorithm to which you refer.

And again, none of the members of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph were subject to polygraph screening, as you have repeatedly, but falsely, alleged on this message board. Members of the NAS panel were selected specifically because they had expertise in relevant fields but no vested interest in the outcome of the review. Their names were published on-line for public commentary before the first meeting convened, and members of the public were given an opportunity to voice any objections to the selection of any proposed member. To the best of my knowledge, no objections were received.

You asked whether I know of any specific cases where a person failed a polygraph test, and it was later conclusively shown that someone else committed the crime. As a matter of fact, I am. Two notorious cases are those of Byron Halsey and Jeff Deskovic, who both falsely confessed to murder during interrogations that followed false positive polygraph outcomes. Another prominent example of a completely innocent person who wrongly failed a polygraph test is Abdallah Higazy, from whom a false confession was also coerced.

Not all licensed professionals require liability waivers. When a licensed optometrists tests my vision, I'm not required to sign a liability waiver. When a licensed mechanic tests the emission levels of my car, I'm not required to sign a liability waiver. I don't see why, if a person is going to have his or her credibility "assessed" by a licensed polygraph "professional," such persons should be required to sign a liability waiver. There is on physical danger associated with sitting for a polygraph test. Such waivers are simply a flight from accountability on the part of polygraph operators.

As for the polygraph operators whose true identities were revealed, we make no apology. It was an exceptional measure taken in response to a deliberate campaign to disrupt this message board, and after repeated admonishments to abide by AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy were ignored. A good rule of thumb for all posting here would be to post nothing that one would be ashamed or embarrassed by if one's real name were associated with the post.

Finally, you ask:

Quote:


Why should we suppose that, say Ed Gelb, a past president and life member in good standing of the American Polygraph Association who falsely passes himself off as a Ph.D. in marketing his services produces any more reliable results than John Grogan?

[highlight]The only people claiming that polygraphic lie detection has any scientific basis are those with vested interests in polygraphy. There is broad consensus amongst scientists that polygraphy has no scientific basis. The fact that there are computerized scoring algorithms for polygraph "testing" doesn't mean that the underlying procedure has any scientific basis. Very much in the same way as computer-generated astrological chart readings have no scientific basis. Note that the National Academy of Sciences rubbished the "PolyScore" algorithm to which you refer.[/highlight]

Shall we assume then that untold numbers of PhD's who work with sex offenders who support the use of the polygraph as a monitoring tool for probationers have a financial vested interest in the polygraph ? No, They don't.  They see week after week their caseload of these folks staying in compliance, and yet derive no income from the polygraph profession itself.  Also, Dr. Phil, and other noted PhD's fully support the use of the polygraph as they understand the basic principles as sound.  You don't have to reinvent psychological set as it is primal within human beings.  That you simply don't like the comparison questions is not enough to say that pure physiology is not being recorded.  In a crime issue, you clones who try to beat it simply lessen the time where the subject would in fact get interrogated; as the attempt to deceive (countermeasures) in creation of false readings is in and of itself a form of a deception.  You thererfore George, in advising the Truthful, have falsely caused at least some of them to go through the interrogation process.  I'm sure that I am not the first one to think of this.  Please don't give me the standard answers that your contermeasures are somehow "Perfect" and that many of these folks have failed to move forward in the process as labeled "Failing to pass" on "Inconclusive", or in some way falling short of their goals.   

And again, none of the members of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph were subject to polygraph screening, as you have repeatedly, but falsely, alleged on this message board. Members of the NAS panel were selected specifically because they had expertise in relevant fields but no vested interest in the outcome of the review. Their names were published on-line for public commentary before the first meeting convened, and members of the public were given an opportunity to voice any objections to the selection of any proposed member. To the best of my knowledge, no objections were received.

   Please understand, as I have tried to make this clear several times now.  If you want peer review it MUST be from those who DO NOT have a background of EVER being tested, or who have worked in government jobs, and who are purely in psychophysiology and not nuclear physics or something else.  Such a study would not be impossible to do.  Clearly you don't want to believe any of ongoing data put out by DoDPI / DACA, even though THEY don't claim 100% accuracy 100% of the time.  That it was advertised who these NAS scientists would be or not, they were not the proper group to have done so, as the proper group is in a very narrow field.   

You asked whether I know of any specific cases where a person failed a polygraph test, and it was later conclusively shown that someone else committed the crime. As a matter of fact, I am. Two notorious cases are those of Byron Halsey and Jeff Deskovic, who both falsely confessed to murder during interrogations that followed false positive polygraph outcomes. Another prominent example of a completely innocent person who wrongly failed a polygraph test is Abdallah Higazy, from whom a false confession was also coerced.

That these people either ran deceptive or inconclusive and were interrogated is not a reflection on the instrument.  Rather, it again comes back to the human element of the interviewer / interrogator.  You say they "Confessed", but how could they provide any elements of the crime itself unless they were involved ?  The utterance of simply "I did it" is not a complete confession as all of the W's and the H are included in any real confession, or at least verbalized.  I sounds to me like poor Police work, and a test that might have not been done to standard-- I really don't know without more specifics.  You failed to mention who the real proven perpetrator was.  Was it otherwise solved ?   

In regard to the Arab you mentioned it sounds as though he were suspect in otherwise being a member of a collective terrorist group. Was he a Cuban camp detainee.  Are you saying the crime for which he was tested was otherwise solved. ?   


Not all licensed professionals require liability waivers. When a licensed optometrists tests my vision, I'm not required to sign a liability waiver. When a licensed mechanic tests the emission levels of my car, I'm not required to sign a liability waiver. I don't see why, if a person is going to have his or her credibility "assessed" by a licensed polygraph "professional," such persons should be required to sign a liability waiver. There is on physical danger associated with sitting for a polygraph test. Such waivers are simply a flight from accountability on the part of polygraph operators.

George, come on, as long as some professions require such waivers, based on Lawyer's input, don't pick on the polygraph profession as if they do so as an Island unto themselves.  I see nothing unethical, as with your local hospital or veteranarian, in protecting themselves, and it may be a condition of insurance.  Don't cast a shadow where it does not belong.  Examiners write a report and obey their training, which in APA and DACA, IS standardized.  They don't individually make up new formats every week.   

As for the polygraph operators whose true identities were revealed, we make no apology. It was an exceptional measure taken in response to a deliberate campaign to disrupt this message board, and after repeated admonishments to abide by AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy were ignored. A good rule of thumb for all posting here would be to post nothing that one would be ashamed or embarrassed by if one's real name were associated with the post.

Can you cite an example of an Anti-poly poster who did not obey all of your site's rules who you denied anonimity ?  Did you apply the rules equally as a moderator ?  Ofcourse not, as you are a zealot.  You claim a public interest forum ?  What B.S. !!  This is your self ego feeding trough which is the Church of the Wayward Deceptive; and where you are the Deceptive Deacon waving the NAS report around as your bible.  One problem though !!  You are simply a sad curiousity at the least, and aiding and abedding the enemies of the United States at your worst.  Your claim of just trying to "Help" the uninformed Truthful applicant becomes a trojan horse reality given all of the Child Molesters who flock to your little church, or otherwise those intent on simply wanting to CHEAT !!!!   So, George ---  Please tell us all from your mind what percentage of people coming to this site of yours do you estimate are here to Cheat ?  What percent are here to avoid detection as repeating child molesters ?  and what percent are just curious Truthful applicants who come out of a google search and just plain old curiousity.   I'm guessing you don't care, or will say you have no way of tracking that.  Doesn't it even bother you that IF even one such person comes here for your advice who is a murderer, rapist, child molester, or other crime that the legitimate law enforcement officer trying to do his / her job is being contaminated by your existance.  Maybe you leave conciounce at the stage when they hand you a PhD, I don't know !   What I do know is that you see yourself as a title wave, when in fact you aren't much more than a curious ripple. 

Why should we suppose that, say Ed Gelb, a past president and life member in good standing of the American Polygraph Association who falsely passes himself off as a Ph.D. in marketing his services produces any more reliable results than John Grogan? 

Ed Gelb is an honorably retired Police Lt. from LAPD.  His successes are not in dispute case after case (Can you name one he got wrong ?) That he has an honorary PhD, or otherwise would not appear to have been a variable in the equation of his having solved his given cases.  He is a fine and honorable family man, a great father, and mentor to many fine examiners; each and every one of them having made a much larger contribution than you in life.  You appear to have stopped growing as a human being after being handed that PhD of yours.  If I had my choice in life of his career or yours,  Ed wins hands down !!!!  Two TV shows, working with top flight Attorneys, front page household name cases, etc.  Ed is doing just fine thank you, and it is you who are perceived as an odd ball and quirky.   

Obversely, if you listened to John L. Grogan's most recent radio show appearance that you referenced with a link, he sounds about like you do on youtube.com; as exciting as watching paint dry.  Unlike you though, John Grogan has former fines of over $20,000.00 for his findings of fraudulant practices by the State of California in 10/02.  He is not a trained examiner, and in short order I predict he will face further consequences for his creation of the fraudulant PEOA that props up his scam of being an examiner.  Grogan is perpetuating on the polygraph community what an administrative law judge already found he was doing to the P.I. community.  The "Earn While You Learn" tactic for which he had all of his licenses / permits revoked, is a parallel to the rediculous "40 pound polygraph academy in a box".   

Just like you can't judge a book by it's cover, you can't judge Grogan by his websites alone.  Here is a link for your readers about Grogan, and they can ask themselves who they would trust to run such a test of the two if their life depended on it.   No Contest !!!!   

http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue138.htm#1 ;  

Your trying to compare these two is like trying to compare a lead design engineer (Ed) with a used car salesman (Grogan).  Get Real !! 

   

Further to my post:

I wonder in what discipline was Ed Gelb's masters degree and PhD?

TheNoLieGuy4U

Thanks for the kind words in your first paragraph.

George and I go back,  on the net, about 8 years. It seems to me if he was aiding the enemy as much as you accuse, he would already have been contacted by an Intel. agency even though he is in Holland. Further, if my memory serves correctly, Trimarco failed him on all relevant question. That's not the norm is it? Him being a military  intelligence officer and the type of subversive and dope questions he was asked, why wasn't he arrested on the spot? The least that should have happened, if the FBI thought he was guilty and evidently they didn't think so, is he should have been drummed out of the military. Yet he remained in and retired. I believe he failed the LAPD poly simply and totally because of the failed FBI poly. And yes, that seems to happen all too frequently. I will not believe that a large percentage of posters on these boards, including long term police officers, who state their poly failures, are liars.

Osama and his henchmen doesn't need George to translate from english to arabic and farsi. They have some pretty good tranlators themselves. He believes, as well as the rest of the anti crowd, that our Intel. Agencies relies too heavely on the polygraph given its error rate. What ever happened to the old fashion investigation?

Apparently you were a federal investigator therefore, instead of spending so much time and energy ranting the same old accusations over and over and offering no proof, why don't you turn that time and energy helping to fight the Globalist agenda of our elected officials in Washington. I'm talking about the UN's: Law of the Sea Treaty (see my posts on Off Topic Posts). That is much more detrimental to this country than this site could ever be. It is real (John Cornyn R. Texas has written a detailed report about its danger) and if passed will make this nation a third world country or lower. I know the Globalist movement is a subject, when brought up, is immediately changed and the media won't touch it because they are a part of it. Ron Paul has tried but they quickly shut him up. It's a cause worthy of attention.