Notguilty1  Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza is a hypocrite.  He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph

Notguilty1

Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as  #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy. 

You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy.  Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.

...Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.

(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…

Quote:
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility. 
If it were probable why didn't he say so? 
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so?   OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?

I see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.

You're trying to make me laugh aren't you?

Why should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?

Quote:

Also, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?

Do you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?