[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 !!