Readers:  before you reach into your pocket and shell out $1000 (or more?) to Mr Mangan, be aware:

Mr Mangan is a privately-schooled examiner with no association or affiliation with any federal, state, or local law enforcement or government entity.  As such, he has no authority to "render" any "official" opinion of anyone's polygraph results.  Furthermore, he has no authority to even obtain your polygraph charts;  that would be your responsibility.  If you are fortunate to get them (good luck trying), all he can do is tell YOU they are flawed/invalid, etc.  No official gov't/LE agency would give him the time of day.   

Mr Mangan also claims to be "credentialed".  By whom?  Credentialed as what?  An APA member?  APA membership gets you a card and a reduced rate at the annual seminar, you're not credentialed as anything.

Caveat Emptor!

George W. Maschke wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:30am:

Yes, George, it would be one thing if I was solicited by a polygraph agency/unit for an opinion.  But as a private citizen I would have no business asking to see any agency's polygraph data.
George W. Maschke wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:30am:

Dan Mangan is not a judge or appeal board member.  He is a private former examiner who is now an antipolygraph consultant.  Such a person carries no weight in the professional polygraph field.
George W. Maschke wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:30am:

Charles Honts is noted and respected in his field by examiners and nonexaminers alike.  Dan Mangan is no Charles Honts.George W. Maschke wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 8:30am:

In the law enforcement/intelligence world, one is credentialed if they represent in an official capacity by virtue of lawful authority, or recognized as a subject matter expert in his/her field of expertise.  Dan Mangan is not credentialed by anyone other than himself on his website;  let's look at these "credentials":

Certified graduate of the Backster School of Lie Detection: he paid $5k for training,  the check cleared, he got a certificate.
•Certified by the American Polygraph Association in Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing:  he did a certain amount of PCSOT exams, he got certified;  it's not an accomplishment, it's required in some states.
•Master of Arts degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Massachusetts/Lowell:  a degree does not bestow expertise
•Graduate Certificate in Forensic Criminology from the University of Massachusetts/Lowell:  he attended a class.
•Full member in good standing with the American Polygraph Association: his dues are paid up;  so are mine.
•Primary author of “A Field Study on the Validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique,” [a polygraph method] published in Physiology & Behavior, a peer-reviewed journal, September 2008:  9 year old study, anything more recent?
•Conducted over 1,000 individual polygraph tests, covering a wide variety of criminal, civil and personal issues:  this is a relative low number over a decade+.
•Official polygraph examiner for the New Hampshire Department of Corrections Sexual Offender Treatment Program from January 2007 through June 2012:  he was-not any longer.

Bottom line:  no person with an ounce of common sense would fork over big bucks for something that offers nothing of value.  Dan Mangan offers nothing of value.

Ex Member wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 10:53pm:


ROTFLMAO! Poor Dan Quayle...

Readers, the polygraph apologist troll known as "quickfix" -- who, unlike me, lacks the courage to use his real name -- is, in my opinion, a gummint plant.

FYI, the federal gummint is the largest purveyor of polygraph "testing" known to mankind.

From what I've observed since 2004 -- and this is only my opinion -- gummint-funded "forensic psycho-physiologists" (perhaps like quickfix) -- are hopelessly parochial and paranoid.

FWIW, over the years, at several polygraph indu$try seminars, I have met --- (or suffered through the presentations of) -- many federally "credentialed" forensic psycho-physiologists. 

From what I've seen, they're typically older white guys who strike me as the type of goobers who might be prone to certain demographically oriented biases.

Mind you, I'm not saying they would necessarily lean that way, but it's kind of a weird vibe that I got. But hey, that's just my own opinion.  

Why?

Well, they strike me as arrogant, judgmental, and hopelessly gung-ho about the "test" --a "test" that has been roundly condemned by the legal, medical and scientific communities since the 1920s.

Make no mistake, that's just my impression. Maybe I'm wrong.

That aside, in my view, rabid federal "forensic psycho-physiologists" such as the quickfix archetype are scared shitless of letting the next Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden pass through their fingertips.

But that's just a matter of time, if history shows us much.

So, to sum up, from my perspective, here's the bottom line:

• Polygraph "testing", from a scientific standpoint, is a sick joke.
  
  The so-called test "works", or so it seems -- after a fashion -- usually when a polygraph examiner browbeats the living shit out of a weak or intimidated test subject, who makes damaging admissions.
  
  But what of the truthful?
  
  Know this: There is a huge amount of collateral damage -- i.e., false positive "test" results

Curiously, the new breed of "evidenced-based" psycho-physiologists wants nothing to do with independent QA reviews, or, God forbid, a countermeasure challenge. The gummint does not release charts. Hmmm.....

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a disconnect there?

Look, scientifically speaking, the polygraph "test" is a farce -- a tortured dog-and-pony show that has precious little scientific underpinnings -- at least according to the National Academy of Sciences. But what does NAS know, right?

Now let's get back on track...

To victims of false-positive polygraph "test" results, I say this:

I can almost certainly nullify your "test" -- provided that adequate data is made available for professional review.

Further, my opinion of nullification (or "no confidence") will be supported by one (or more) past or present members of the APA board of directors, who will "blindly evaluate" your case. 

On top of that, your bogus results will likely be rendered suspect via their conflict with the published "model policies" and "best practices" of the American Polygraph Association itself.

How is this possible, you ask?

It's simple. In spite of the best efforts of like-minded polygraph advocates, a polygraph "test" is like a house of cards: The slightest (objectively analytical) breeze will render it absolutely useless.

For anyone whose life has been wrongfully upended by a polygraph "test", take note: Help is but a phone call away.

Polygraph victims, risk no money now. Pay ONLY when your "test" has been nullified - or deemed "no confidence" -- by myself AND one or more past or present APA officials.

Again, polygraph "test" victims, I implore you: Do NOT post here. Call me directly at 603-801-5179.

One more thing... The polygraph-apologist troll known as "quickfix" said this: "Dan Mangan offers nothing of value."

Polygraph victims, I ask you this: Is there "value" in the clear-cut, risk-free proposition I have articulated?

You know there is.

I can help save your job, marriage, liberty or reputation.

Take it from a polygraph professional: The "test" is a lousy crapshoot. 

Call me at 603-801-5179 -- from 9AM to 9PM ET only -- and I'll explain the dirty details.

Again, there's no financial risk.

You pay for my services ONLY after your polygraph "test" has been judged to be null and void.

So polygraph examiners need be true believers? Is that it? 

Can there not be such a thing as an "anti-polygraph polygraph examiner"?

I believe there can be. 

Such a professional is usually known as a CONSULTANT -- one who has no agenda, other than to identify the pros and the cons of any given situation, and perhaps recommend a course of action. 

That's what I do.

There is no false advertising on my web site, quickfix, as I am quite clear about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing" -- and have been for years.

In the real world, far too many people are pressured -- if not forced, in effect -- into submitting to a polygraph "test. If that outcome is wrongly unfavorable, I can provide those victims with a facile remedy.

You got a problem with that, quickfix?

My target market is not federal employees or applicants. Rather, the market niche in which I operate is pure private sector. That includes assisting false-positive victims of PCSOT, LEPET, criminal/civil attorney exams, and odious fidelity "testing." 

BTW, I still conduct PDD "tests" on a select basis, but those clients -- all of them -- are duly informed well ahead of time about the pseudoscientific nature of "forensic psycho-physiology."

And if anyone thinks the APA will do what I do in terms of comprehensive game-over nullification of a polygraph "test," think again.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
603-801-5179 

quickfix wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:



I don't just declare a polygraph "test" is null and void -- I prove it.

Readers, it is painfully obvious that pro-polygraph troll "quickfix" is intolerant of independent professionals who choose to advocate for victims of erroneous polygraph "test" results.

Perhaps quickfix would feel differently if he saw the breadth and depth of polygraph-borne damage that I've seen in the private sector.

But I doubt it.

Dan Mangan wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 12:55am:


Any possibility of nullifying "quickfix"?  I'd gladly give you $1000 for that!  lol