posted 05-30-2008 01:17 PM            

I have agreed to post this one time 'statement' from the Colorado(CAPE) Board of Directors since I was told this is a unified Board statement, not any one individual.

However, I will not be posting any follow-up board statements. After this, individuals will have to stand behind their own individual remarks and posts if the discussion continues.

Lastly, I do not endorse this statement, nor am I defending anyone. My goal in this profession has always been to promote unity whenever possible. Nuff said. Ralph

****************** End Polygraph Place Disclaimer *************

The Board of Directors, Colorado Association of Polygraph Examiners, (C.A.P.E.) has determined a reply is necessary in order to correct some very incorrect information discussed in the above commentary.

On 9 May 2008, Nathan J. Gordon, an invited instructor, presented through his views and experience, information on Countermeasures and Data Analysis. Of 31 attendees, apparently one was dissatisfied, namely Ray Nelson. The other 30 attendees were very pleased and thankful to Mr. Gordon for sharing his knowledge and perceptions with us on these two issues.

Apparently Nelson was not paying much attention to some of Mr. Gordon’s comments, for he has totally misrepresented what Mr. Gordon said in several areas. In no way was Mr. Gordon trying to represent Dr. Honts as a serious threat to polygraph. He listed Dr. Honts’ website in a slide along with Williams and Masche as places where polygraph people could obtain information on countermeasures. Mr. Gordon’s PowerPoint handouts provide details about Williams and Masche and what they are trying to teach people. There is no mention of Dr. Honts. Nelson obviously did not bother to make this connection.

Mr. Gordon displayed a slide with a cyclic cardio that matched a very slow respiratory pattern as a possible confirmation of controlled breathing. An attendee referred to the cycles as a ‘vagus roll’. Nelson then blurted out that we should be saying ‘respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation’, because that is how doctors and medical personnel view that phenomenon. Evidently, Nelson believes we examiners should strive to be more scientific with our verbiage. Such terminology would probably be good in a courtroom setting, but amongst ourselves, we polygraph examiners have developed, over the years, our own terminology with which we feel comfortable.

Mr. Gordon stated that such a cyclic cardio that matches a slow respiratory pattern is a possible confirmation of controlled breathing. The 4-1 pulse to respiration was also pointed out to raise an examiner’s suspicion.

Through the years we have seen similar responses from examinees. Although we may not be apprised of the science behind it, we know such responses can become part of a cluster of other types countermeasure responses that we need to look for to help us make a decision.

Those of us who have been in the polygraph field for considerable years recognize that there have always been different schools of thought involving interviewing, testing and scoring. Our objective is to catch the bad guy and protect the innocent. Even though different examiners may use different routes to reach that overall objective, the great majority of us usually reach that goal.

In all of his scientific rambling, Nelson apparently fails to recognize the basic function of the polygraph. The polygraph remains to be an investigative tool. We examiners are cognizant of all the science involved with the chart interpretation and scoring. We leave that to the researchers and psycophysiologists to determine and, in turn, inform us of their findings. Then we can take those findings and apply them to our testing.

Nelson has displayed a demeanor of rudeness and disrespect. In this situation he did not bother to obtain Mr. Gordon’s permission to publish his slide handouts on the Internet. Nelson wants polygraph and examiners to become more scientific, yet he violates one of the basic scientific principles. Scientific conclusions are based on facts not assumptions. Nelson failed to consult with Mr. Gordon to clarify Nelson’s concerns about Dr. Honts being listed with Williams and Masche. Instead, Nelson made a wrongful assumption and, in turn, passed disinformation to the world on the Internet.

At this last conference, Nelson was not paying attention most of the time; doing work on his laptop and carrying on a side conversation during the lecture. He arrived hours after the conference began and left early, only after being asked more than once to be quiet because he was disturbing others trying to listen to the presentation. The second day of the conference he again left several hours early in the middle of a different presentation. Even though he missed at least half of Mr. Gordon’s lecture, Nelson has the audacity to do nothing but criticize it. Maybe he should at least stay for the entire lecture before forming such a negative opinion based on only a portion of the lecture. Nelson needs to focus his energy on more positive things in our field as it is apparent this is not the first time he has put others in a negative spot light.

Board of Director’s, Colorado Association of Polygraph Examiners.

posted 05-30-2008 01:51 PM            

quote:

---

Evidently, Nelson believes we examiners should strive to be more scientific with our verbiage. Such terminology would probably be good in a courtroom setting, but amongst ourselves, we polygraph examiners have developed, over the years, our own terminology with which we feel comfortable.

---

Am I to understand this is a good thing? One of the many reasons we are not accepted by scientists is because we have made up our own, unscientific language. We should be ashamed that we feel "comfortable" with error while at the same time asking for equal standing among those in sister sciences.

quote:

---

Through the years we have seen similar responses from examinees. Although we may not be apprised of the science behind it, we know such responses can become part of a cluster of other types countermeasure responses that we need to look for to help us make a decision.

---

Translation: We have anecdotal reports of things and we're content with those without any proof - even if it means we're wrong.

That's irresponsible, to say the least. How do we "know such responses can become part of a cluster of other types countermeasure responses"? The only way to "know" is to test it scientifically, and that was Ray's point here.

For those of us in the polygraph world who are trying to bridge the gap between the scientific research community and the practitioners (us), this is the type of nonsense that makes them roll their eyes and not take us seriously.

If we don't learn the proper methodology, terms and phrases now, then how will we be able to do so when we do enter the courtroom? Has anybody ever read transcripts of examiners in the courtroom? We often sound pretty ignorant when the scientists get through with us.

quote:

---

Nelson has displayed a demeanor of rudeness and disrespect. In this situation he did not bother to obtain Mr. Gordon’s permission to publish his slide handouts on the Internet.

---

Obviously, this requires a conversation with Nate, or else we can't know if this is true, and I don't recall Nate making that complaint here.

quote:

---

Nelson wants polygraph and examiners to become more scientific, yet he violates one of the basic scientific principles. Scientific conclusions are based on facts not assumptions.

---

No, that's not true at all. "Science" itself starts with assumptions it accepts as tentatively true. I read that in the first paragraph of my first college science class.

posted 05-30-2008 02:51 PM            

p.s. I still respect Dan Sosnowski and many others, regardless if I believe that they may be stretching the trade a bit. They are big boys, and even they know that not everything that glitters is gold.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 05-30-2008).]

posted 05-30-2008 03:15 PM            

ANSWER;

posted 05-30-2008 08:22 PM            

I'll address a few more content concerns, and some of the process errors as well.

quote:

---

The Board of Directors, Colorado Association of Polygraph Examiners, (C.A.P.E.) has determined a reply is necessary in order to correct some very incorrect information discussed in the above commentary.

---

Is it, in fact, incorrect that Mr. Gordon presented information to CAPE that Dr. Honts presents a “PRIMARY threat to us today?” I think the content of Mr. Gordon's Powerpoint speaks for itself. The CAPE BOD is in error when they state “very incorrect information.”

Or, does the CAPE BOD agree that Dr. Honts presents the primary threat to us today?

quote:

---

On 9 May 2008, Nathan J. Gordon, an invited instructor, presented through his views and experience, information on Countermeasures and Data Analysis. Of 31 attendees, apparently one was dissatisfied, namely Ray Nelson. The other 30 attendees were very pleased and thankful to Mr. Gordon for sharing his knowledge and perceptions with us on these two issues.

---

Perhaps I was the only person paying enough attention to the content to notice the inaccuracies and problems.

There is certainly not dispute about the value of much of Mr. Gordon's training and presentation. I expressed my concern about a couple of points. There is nothing wrong with being dissatisfied, when the content is dissatisfying. When I spoke to him at the APA conference last summer, Mr. Gordon admitted to me that he doesn't know the difference between a probability and a proportion. I find that dissatisfying. I was also dissatisfied with the content of the information he disseminated, and thought it portrayed Dr. Honts inaccurately and unfairly.

Mr. Gordon has admitted his disdain for Dr. Honts, and the reasons for that, involving a bogus concern about the theft of some intellectual property.

Mr. Gordon has also stated that he will apologize here if someone can point out what is different about his publication and the one later by Honts. I have pointed out some of the important differences. No word from Mr. Gordon yet.

Perhaps the message from CAPE is that its not acceptable to point out problems and engage in discussion. Wow. No wonder we've got problems with the polygraph profession keeping pace with other sciences.

Certainly, the post by Ralph is bothersome. Why don't the CAPE BOD post this themselves. I know, Ralph may not mind a little controversy as it generates activity and interest.

quote:

---

Apparently Nelson was not paying much attention to some of Mr. Gordon’s comments, for he has totally misrepresented what Mr. Gordon said in several areas. In no way was Mr. Gordon trying to represent Dr. Honts as a serious threat to polygraph. He listed Dr. Honts’ website in a slide along with Williams and Masche as places where polygraph people could obtain information on countermeasures. Mr. Gordon’s PowerPoint handouts provide details about Williams and Masche and what they are trying to teach people. There is no mention of Dr. Honts. Nelson obviously did not bother to make this connection.

---

Wrong. Mr. Gordon presented and disseminated information that listed Dr. Honts right along with Williams and Mashke. The sub-bullet underneath Honts' name stated “PRIMARY threat to us today.”

I was evidently paying enough attention to notice Mr. Gordon's inaccuracies and the bothersome content in which he maligns a major polygraph scientist and researcher out of some 21 year-old personal resentment.

quote:

---

Mr. Gordon displayed a slide with a cyclic cardio that matched a very slow respiratory pattern as a possible confirmation of controlled breathing. An attendee referred to the cycles as a ‘vagus roll’. Nelson then blurted out that we should be saying ‘respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation’, because that is how doctors and medical personnel view that phenomenon. Evidently, Nelson believes we examiners should strive to be more scientific with our verbiage. Such terminology would probably be good in a courtroom setting, but amongst ourselves, we polygraph examiners have developed, over the years, our own terminology with which we feel comfortable.

---

The CAPE BOD has omitted, the detail that I raised my hand from that back of the room (evidently paying attention to the content of presentation), and waited for Mr. Gordon to acknowledge. At that point, I asked for clarification (because the slide showing the “vagus roll” said “Countermeasure” in large letters at the top. Mr. Gordon confirmed that he considered this to be a countermeasure. I asked for further clarification about whether that information came from the study of some data, and Mr. Gordon clarified that it did not. It further asked for clarification on the 4:1 respiration pulse-rate CM signature, and Mr. Gordon confirmed that is also NOT the result of the scientific study of data.

I was not rude, though my questions would be perceived as challenging – especially if the expectation is that we not ask questions, not disagree, and not expect scientific training.

It was not until I posted on this board that I expressed my concerns about the unscientific problems with the training.

quote:

---

In all of his scientific rambling, Nelson apparently fails to recognize the basic function of the polygraph. The polygraph remains to be an investigative tool. We examiners are cognizant of all the science involved with the chart interpretation and scoring. We leave that to the researchers and psycophysiologists to determine and, in turn, inform us of their findings. Then we can take those findings and apply them to our testing.

---

Now there is an assumption. What have I done to indicate that I have lost track of the polygraph as an investigative tool? This is a baseless and unprofessional jab. Mr. Gordon purports to be one of those researchers and scientists, and purports to provide scientific training. I think we deserve to expect more from our trainers and our BOD.

quote:

---

Nelson has displayed a demeanor of rudeness and disrespect. In this situation he did not bother to obtain Mr. Gordon’s permission to publish his slide handouts on the Internet. Nelson wants polygraph and examiners to become more scientific, yet he violates one of the basic scientific principles. Scientific conclusions are based on facts not assumptions. Nelson failed to consult with Mr. Gordon to clarify Nelson’s concerns about Dr. Honts being listed with Williams and Maschke. Instead, Nelson made a wrongful assumption and, in turn, passed disinformation to the world on the Internet.

---

Wrong again. I was not rude. I raised my hand and asked for clarification when I was acknowledged by the trainer. I have also spoken with Mr. Gordon at APA last summer, when I observed similar disparaging comments about Honts in a training session. I approached him immediately and he informed about his concern that Honts had “stolen” his idea. In fact, Honts' work is different in important ways, it attempts to replicate, extend and improve the idea. That is how science works. Honts' publication was printed after Nate's and everyone knows that. So, I find the continued groundless resentment leaking into training to be both unscientific and irresponsible.

I did not pass disinformation. I provided a graphic of Mr. Gordon's slide, so that others can judge for themselves regarding the content and accuracy of his presentation content.

quote:

---

At this last conference, Nelson was not paying attention most of the time; doing work on his laptop and carrying on a side conversation during the lecture. He arrived hours after the conference began and left early, only after being asked more than once to be quiet because he was disturbing others trying to listen to the presentation. The second day of the conference he again left several hours early in the middle of a different presentation. Even though he missed at least half of Mr. Gordon’s lecture, Nelson has the audacity to do nothing but criticize it. Maybe he should at least stay for the entire lecture before forming such a negative opinion based on only a portion of the lecture.

---

In fact, I expressed my concern about a few important points, not the entire presentation.

I often sit in the back with my computer. I did that all the way through graduate school. I take notes, do some work, and look up information in my computer references regarding the material at hand.

I was evidently paying enough attention to notice Mr. Gordon's unscientific inaccuracies. I also participated more substantively than most others in the room.

quote:

---

Nelson needs to focus his energy on more positive things in our field as it is apparent this is not the first time he has put others in a negative spot light.

Board of Director’s, Colorado Association of Polygraph Examiners.

---

So what does the CAPE BOD suggest I focus my energy on?

I'll wager that I've done more volunteer work on behalf of the Colorado SOMB and polygraph than most examiners in Colorado. I successfully lobbied the Colorado SOMB through a difficult discussion and decision to require polygraphs for juvenile offenders. I was involved in the formulation of a QC protocol for PCSOT exams. I devoted countless hours to committees and editing language in the revised standards for polygraph with adults and juveniles, and other standards on psychosexual risk evaluation with adults and juveniles. I designed the scoring system for the state's parental risk assessment, and I volunteer a lot of training time, on polygraph, mental health treatment, suicide risk assessment, and other psychodiagnostic matters. I'll also wager that I spend more time studying the science of polygraph than most and have devoted innumerable hours to studying polygraph scoring algorithms.

By “negative spot light,” I'm assuming this is a reference to the March 2004, QC on the Schuler case (its public record now), in which I was not going to support the findings of an examination which was later confirmed by confession, factual basis and admission in court, and conviction, to be a false-negative result on a ritualistic pattern of sexual abuse against three children.

See the exam here.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060623.html

Three children in three different foster homes telling six different professionals the same story of a ritualistic pattern of sexual abuse. A local examiner tested the wife and cleared her husband of any wrongdoing (he later confessed). County Social Services wanted to reunify the children after the polygraph, and I suggested they QC the test first. Their first response was “what's QC?” Then they asked if we would look at the test. Mr. Cothran's is reported by the County Social Services worker Brandi Baca as yelling at her and initially refusing when she requested the review. He later agreed when the informed him they would not use his services in the future. Lawson Hagler and reviewed the test together, and identified what we considered to be deficiencies.

Lawson and I attempted to meet with examiner (Cothran) to discuss our concerns and aske him to support the idea of a recommendation to set the test results aside. He became upset, kept our notes, and left. We informed the County in writing that we were unable to complete the QC review, and were unwilling to provide recommendations without Mr. Cothran's involvement. We also recommended they seek and independent review from a national level expert or from an agency outside Colorado. We suggested APA or NAPS, or National Polygraph Consultants, and included a list of potential experts that included Lundell, Holden, Honts and others.

This examination was then QC'd by three other examiners who supported the validity of the test results. One of those reviewers was David Henigsman (member of the CAPE BOD). Mr. Henigsman is a respected person and respected examiner. Another was Barbara Johnson, whom I last heard was facing kidnapping charges in Kansas. The third I cannot recall right now. All three examiners supported the examination (a confirmed false negative, regarding a pattern of sexual abuse), which I could not support. So, I'm the odd man out again, and yep, I put others in a negative spot light – 'cause they were wrong.

Our desire in attempting to meet with Mr. Cothran was to enact a solution that would have helped him to preserve his professionalism and reputation.

Mr. Cothran then made hundreds of copies of our notes and a draft, and disseminated those to several SOMB and CAPE meetings. Then, he filed two complaints against Lawson, also naming myself, for criticizing his work publically. The SOMB declined to hear the complaint. The CAPE committee neglected to ever contact Lawson and Myself, and apparently did not read our written response. They upheld the complaint in 2005, and the CAPE president immediately withdrew the complaint and finding when we pointed out that our written response clarified that it was Mr. Cothran who disseminated our notes, not us. To put it rudely, Mr. Cothran stepped on his own stuff. Mr. Armstrong (a current CAPE BOD member) was CAPE president at that time. He is a respected police examiner in Colorado Springs. I don't know him well, but he always seems levelheaded and decent.

There is also a long-standing misunderstanding at CAPE that I am Lawson's employee. I am not. I'll probably have to show someone my tax filings before they get it, but it shouldn't matter anyway. We are friends, and colleagues. We are also business competitors. He runs a large polygraph shop, and I run a small (very small) business.

Mr. Cothran remains upset with me today and curses openly at me when I attempted to say hello to him as I walked past while entering the CAPE meetings. At a 2006 CAPE meeting he said to me “f%^ you Ray. You're not my f(*&ing friend, so f(*^ off.” This was observed by Chuck Marshall (current CAPE BOD member), who was not a BOD member at that time. Mr. Marshall is someone whom I respect and admire. He's a retired child sex crimes investigator. The BOD at the time did nothing, as far as I know. At a 2007 CAPE meeting, Mr. Cothran said to me. “f%^* you Ray. We don't talk,” when I said hello to he and a group of others who were standing around BSing before the conference. OK, so I probably should stop trying to be cordial with him, because it puts him in a negative light. CAPE president Martinez's initial response to this ongoing problem was to “don't talk to him,” and I had to point out that Cothran's behavior was like that of a upset 5 year-old crying “he's looking at me, make him stop looking at me.” After some insistence, the CAPE BOD did seem to admonish Mr. Cothran to behave professionally at CAPE conferences.

A positive result from that cluster-F$%^ was that the Colorado SOMB saw the need for a QC protocol, and tasked the polygraph subcommittee with creating one, along with the revised standards. So, we now have a requirement for QC upon request, and a structured protocol to manage the process and examiner concerns associated with QA reviews. Its a good protocol, and will help avoid many problems. Its probably not perfect yet, but it keeps us out of the rubber-stamp QC that supported this confirmed false-negative results. It also stabilizes concerns about nit-picking

So, the message from the CAPE BOD seems to be that I am not to raise my hand, ask for clarification, express any disagreement or concerns, and certainly not to engage others in a discussion about matters of polygraph training or polygraph science. This message seems to be reflected in the choice of presenters for the two most recent two-day CAPE training conferences. We had the same trainer and presentation content for one day at both conferences. Nate Gordon had the first day. The second day was Lt Jonathyn Priest, Denver PD, who provides an excellent and entertaining presentation on Behavioral Analysis. It seemed to be the same content as the last CAPE seminar – mostly regarding homicide investigation. It is very interesting, and Mr. Priest is a great trainer, but it has not much to do with polygraph, and less so for us private examiners. It probably helps meet some of the continuing training requirements for CAPE president Michael Martinez (Denver PD) and VP David Colaizzi (Denver PD). I don't know Mr. Martinez or Mr. Coliazzi, but they are well respected by others, so I assume they are good men.

This is from the CAPE by-laws:

[quote]
Article II – OBJECTIVES

• The development of the high standards of proficiency in the polygraph profession through the fostering and encouragement of scientific training by education and research through advanced study and progressive techniques.
  
• To promote and maintain the high standards of ethics, integrity, honor and conduct in the polygraph profession.
  
• To provide an opportunity and a forum for the exchange of information and data regarding polygraph experiences, studies and research.
  
• To cooperate with all organizations in matters of mutual interest. To promote total professionalism.

So, 1) high standards of integrity, scientific training by education and research through advanced study, 2) ethics and integrity, 3) exchange of information, and 4) promotion of professionalism. It seems to me that is exactly what I've been trying to do. The CAPE BOD response to my discussion topic on this forum would seems to 1) be opposed to asking any tough questions of our trainers and gurus, 2) retaliate for speaking up about what I see as problems, instead of sweeping them aside or not noticing, 3) desire to squelch the discussion and exchange of information, and 4) inhibit an effort to raising the professional standards which he hold our trainers to.

The CAPE BOD should be concerned about the accuracy and scientific basis for the training that it provides to CAPE members. What we don't want is for an examiner to make a call based on bad, unproven or disproven information, or arcane techniques, and then have a case turn against us in court. Colorado is a state that takes polygraph results (results) seriously. It is an investigative tool, but it is not just an investigative tool. It is a test. The SOMB has decided that test results matter. Test results will have an impact on rights and liberties, and will be subject to challenge. And if the results matter, then the accuracy of the results matter. That means the accuracy of our training and science also matter.

What it the correct thing to do when we notice problems that others don't? Do we sit silently and say nothing? That seems to be how problems prevail. It would be preferable to have a professional community that enforces expectations for good scientific training content, professionalism, and open discussion about matters of concern.

With all due respect, I'd hate to have to think of the CAPE BOD as baselessly petty and retaliatory against members who speak up and express their concerns.

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 05-31-2008 07:36 AM            

Usually I have found association board members publish unified statements that are emotionless and factual. This posting seems to be written by someone who was very angry at the time they wrote it. If the attitude of the Colorado Board is truly what they wrote I am concerned about their influence on the direction in which polygraph studies goes. Most board members I have met are well respected within their organization, and have the ability to influence others. Ray pointed out in his post he considers at least some of these members to be in that category.

The letter did not list names or contact information for any of the board members who reportedly agreed to the entire content. I think we should make an effort to contact them individually to determine if they collectively believe all that they wrote in the letter. If this is so, I think we should make an effort to provide them with articles describing the current trend of polygraph, one towards professionalism and defensibility.

I want to personally thank Ralph for posting both the disclaimer and the letter.

posted 05-31-2008 08:25 AM            

With all due respect to those that find Ray's insights and instruction offensive, while I may not initially agree with everything that Ray says, if I take time to ponder and contemplate what his message is, I find myself seeing great wisdom and perspective in what he conveys.

His (OUR) quest to move toward standardization of our practices, toward correcting our self-created lingo, and toward the healthy practice of challenging a litany of presupposed assumptions that may or may not be scientifically valid, should be praised and embraced.

Now, CAPE Board, did you conduct an interview with each of the 31 members present? Is that how you came up with the conclusion that there was only one dissatisfied?

As far as what Mr. Gordon was conveying, the slides are clear on that matter.

Pertaining to the ‘vagus roll’ versus‘respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation’, as a Board of Directors, you cannot possibly be espousing the use of incorrect terminology that may have the effect of making our professional examiners appear less than knowledgable...

Once again, as a Board, what evidence do you submit that "[Mr.] Nelson apparently fails to recognize the basic function of the polygraph"? On the contrary, as a Therapist AND a polygraph examiner, I think he has a very interesting and quite broad perspective on the function of the polygraph.

"Scientific conclusions are based on facts not assumptions." I wholeheartedly agree!

I am APPALLED by the tone of the joint statement, if in fact it truly is a joint statement, which I cannot fathom that it truly is.

Stat, during our joint AAPP/FPA conference last week, a great mind used the phrase "allergic to change." How insightful, indeed.

Quoting from the message, "The Board of Directors, Colorado Association of Polygraph Examiners, (C.A.P.E.) has determined a reply is necessary in order to correct some very incorrect information discussed in the above commentary." If the purpose of the quote by the "joint" board was to correct the misstated bullet on Mr. Gordon's presentation, then why was the "objective, collective, and professionally drafted" statement not limited to saying merely that an error was made on the slide presentation, and Mr. Gordon was misunderstood in his presentation. Why go to the lengths of saying, in reference to Ray, "dissatisfied," "totally misrepresented,"did not bother," "not paying much attention," "scientific rambling," "fails to recognize the basic function of the polygraph," "demeanor of rudeness and disrespect,"did not bother,"passed disinformation to the world,"not paying attention most of the time," "has the audacity," "needs to focus his energy on more positive things in our field" (this last one is so far away from the actuality of his contributions). I surely hope that this statement is misrepresenting that it conveys a collective position by the CAPE BOD.

------------------
Ben

posted 05-31-2008 08:40 AM            

It does me no good to get more cross-ways with anyone.

Me and Sharon Stone simply need to learn to keep our big mouths shut.

If the CAPE BOD wanted to have a conversation about this they would have contacted me directly. If they had a legitimate concern they would have addressed it in a more appropriate manner. Any follow up to this is just petty retaliation and vindictiveness.

I'm done with this.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 05-31-2008 09:03 AM            

Well, having read the statement, I don't see where you have provided a case where Ray provided "incorrect information."

quote---------------------------------------
On 9 May 2008, Nathan J. Gordon, an invited instructor, presented through his views and experience, information on Countermeasures and Data Analysis. Of 31 attendees, apparently one was dissatisfied, namely Ray Nelson. The other 30 attendees were very pleased and thankful to Mr. Gordon for sharing his knowledge and perceptions with us on these two issues.

-----------------------------------un---

And you know for a fact that ALL the other 30 attendees were "very pleased?"
Was a closed door meeting then held to rail against Mr. Nelson after he left? I suppose you are basing your casual survey off of a paper survey after the lecture. Did ALL 30 examiners respond?

quote-------------------------------------
Apparently Nelson was not paying much attention to some of Mr. Gordon’s comments, for he has totally misrepresented what Mr. Gordon said in several areas. In no way was Mr. Gordon trying to represent Dr. Honts as a serious threat to polygraph.
------------------------------------un----

OK, that is a lie. We have seen the power point presentation, and it clearly lists Dr. Honts as a member of the polygraph threat matrix. At the very least the BOD is exagerating when they write that "in no way" (was Dr. Honts represented as a threat. Indeed, there was a way.

quote------------------------------------
Mr. Gordon’s PowerPoint handouts provide details about Williams and Masche and what they are trying to teach people. There is no mention of Dr. Honts. Nelson obviously did not bother to make this connection.
-------------------un-----------------

No, Ray did in fact acknowledge that perhaps Nate was guilty of innuendo at the least without a frontal assault on Dr. Hont's character.It is you that seems to lack the ability to read and understand English.

quote-------------------------------------
Nelson then blurted out that we should be saying ‘respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation’, because that is how doctors and medical personnel view that phenomenon. Evidently, Nelson believes we examiners should strive to be more scientific with our verbiage.
-------------------------------------un-----

"Blurted out" eh? Sounds like an emotional characterization. Funny, for 5 years I have been mispelling "Vagus Roll" as "Vegas Roll" because the term is a bullshit phrase that has no home in any scientific literature or even a dictionary. Spelling isn't one of my strong suits, especially spelling idiosynchratic rubbish like poly babble. Perhaps Ray is encouraging us all to not sound like morons just because it's comfy club talk.

quote------------------------------------

Mr. Gordon stated that such a cyclic cardio that matches a slow respiratory pattern is a possible confirmation of controlled breathing. The 4-1 pulse to respiration was also pointed out to raise an examiner’s suspicion.
------------------------------------------

So let me get this straight. Nate has no scientific studies to suggest this concept---so in effect, he pulled it out of his butt. The information then traveled through the air and into the minds to be "swallowed" by the listeners? Common sense tells us that we shouldn't swallow things that come from someone's butt----that's just nasty.

quote-------------------------------------

Through the years we have seen similar responses from examinees. Although we may not be apprised of the science behind it, we know such responses can become part of a cluster of other types countermeasure responses that we need to look for to help us make a decision.
----------------------un--------------

We know this from what documented research? What cluster? I'm interested in the data as long as it isn't nasty.

quote---------------------------------

Those of us who have been in the polygraph field for considerable years recognize that there have always been different schools of thought involving interviewing, testing and scoring.
------------------un--------------------

That is just stupid. You don't have to be in the biz "for considerable years" to know the divisional schools of thought. That is simple old man/ old woman code for condescention. I smell a single author, not a group document.
----------quote-------------------------
In all of his scientific rambling, Nelson apparently fails to recognize the basic function of the polygraph.
--------------------un------------------

Ray does engage in scientific rambling for sure-----and I ramble about hot rods----we all ramble about something. I envision that the primary author rambles about platitudes. Perhaps the best venue for "scientific ramblings" is at a ----oh----SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE.

quote----------------------------------
At this last conference, Nelson was not paying attention most of the time; doing work on his laptop and carrying on a side conversation during the lecture. He arrived hours after the conference began and left early, only after being asked more than once to be quiet because he was disturbing others trying to listen to the presentation. The second day of the conference he again left several hours early in the middle of a different presentation. Even though he missed at least half of Mr. Gordon’s lecture, Nelson has the audacity to do nothing but criticize it. Maybe he should at least stay for the entire lecture before forming such a negative opinion based on only a portion of the lecture. Nelson needs to focus his energy on more positive things in our field as it is apparent this is not the first time he has put others in a negative spot light.
-----------------------------------------un--

This is pure baseless accusation. If some beauracrat publicly accused me of not paying attention during a lecture in writing---I just might file a suit or a formal complaint. Don't you have a confidentiality clause in your by-laws/ constitution that states that disciplanary actions must be carried out in secret? Putting Ray on Front Street with baseless accusations is petulant, immature, and unprofessional. Lucky for you Ray has a sense of humor and perspective, as it is the CAPE BOD that is at fault for publishing in public a formal, official admonishment.

stat

posted 05-31-2008 10:59 AM            

Ray, you are ALWAYS welcome to attend Utah's yearly seminars.

posted 05-31-2008 05:54 PM         

I didn't want to post this on Polygraph Place because I didn't want to add to the hype, but before I am barraged with angry E-mails from First Amendment defenders, I thought that I had better respond. I don't know who wrote the CAPE Board response but I want you to know that when I saw it, my comment was, you had the right to your opinion and the right to express that opinion. My recommendation was to let the issue die. I did not agree to posting a response on Polygraph Place or any place else. I suggested that Nate was a big boy and had already posted a response. I thought that he could take care of himself.

I will be at APA in Indianapolis and would be willing to buy both you and Nate a frosty beverage of your choice if that will put this issue to rest.

Bob Armstrong
Chairman
CAPE Board of Directors

posted 05-31-2008 06:52 PM            

Are you here to tell us that despite the fact that you are Chairman of the Board of Directors of CAPE, you do not know who wrote the statement? Seriously? You mean you wrote here today the above before contacting the Board for info? That's tough to believe.

On an aside, I commend you for making peace with the drink offerings----you sound like a nice fella.

posted 05-31-2008 09:31 PM         

No, I haven't contacted the board. When I saw that the letter had been posted here I was so mad that, well let's just say I was mad. Most of the board members are located in Denver, I am not. They very well may have met without me and decided to have the letter posted here. I did see a copy of the letter last week and expressed my opinion on the matter. Since I recommended that we let the issue die, and didn't hear anything else, I thought that it was a dead issue. Ralph said that this was a "unified Board statement", and I will not blame Ralph for posting it, but I am not happy that it was posted, and don't believe that it can be called a "unified statement". I don't think Ray chose the correct forum to express his displeasure with the training, but I defend his right to express his opinion. CAPE is like most state associations, the leadership does most of the work, but is powerless when it comes to controlling individual members. CAPE will be holding elections at the November meeting. I invite any member who is or has been dissatisifed with the leadership or training provided at our seminars to run for office. I have been a member of the Board of Directors as Vice President Law Enforcement, President, and Chairman of the Board of Directors for 10 of the last 13 years. I am looking forward to just being a member of the organization.

I will be happy to address any concerns either Ray or Nate may have in private E-Mails, but think that we have aired enough of our dirty laundry publicly, and I will not repond further in this thred.

posted 06-01-2008 08:30 AM            

Thanks for the human contact on this board. That goes a long way toward a healthy and connected professional community.

Unfortunately, with perhaps 1 or 2 rare exceptions emails to board members generally go unanswered.

Any discussion about resolution of a concern, requires some vision about what that resolution might look like. For me it would be an improvement in the quality of presentation at CAPE and other polygraph conferences. I have approached Mr. Gordon and others directly. While some people will discuss details and do possess a studied vocabulary regarding their own presentation and training material, it has been clear to me that Mr. Gordon won't really talk about the important details. This seems in part because he doesn't seem to understand things like the data and decision model underlying his scoring procedures, basic statistical measurement concepts, and how important it is that a national or state level trainer provide accurate information to trainees. Once trained, polygraph professionals tend to be imprinted, and it is darn-near impossible for them to update their practices without an act of god or some anointment from their personal guru. Mr. Gordon has repeatedly provided training that reeks of his age-old animosity. I find it disappointing and unscientific for that to occur at a training conference for which I'm supposed to take a day off work and get excited about "scientific training."

CAPE has repeated brought disappointing training. Lt. Priest is a good trainer, but the training hours he provides are of primary value to homicide investigators. We've had him at the last two conferences. Last year, we had some unmemorable polygraph trainer who provided inaccurate information on psychopathy, including, if I recall correctly, that a psychopath can beat a polygraph. He didn't know the difference between psychopathy and APD, and didn't seem to be aware of the difference when I approached him during a break. Instead, he asked me to send him the research that I am aware of. I certainly don't mind sharing information, but it seems to me that trainers should do their own homework.

At the most recent, while I'm seated in the back, causing annoyance with legitimate questions and information about the training content, our CAPE vice president and the class-clown are joking about moving the training to a strip-club. I have no problems with jokes, but juxtaposed against annoyance at content related questions and discussion it seems to me that the CAPE leadership are missing something important here.

Sorry, but I view this as an appropriate discussion forum for all matters pertaining to polygraph testing, polygraph science, and the polygraph profession.

CAPE is an association, not an agency. We often forget that. Some agencies might certainly have concerns about their membership participating in open discussion about any and all matters pertaining to polygraph, machine guns, motorcycles, hot rods, catapults, and polygraph. They are certainly within reason to restrict participation according to their priorities.

I have initiated all kinds of discussion here regarding polygraph trainings, including APA, Colorado and Utah. Some good some not so good. I will argue that discussing these matters here is entirely appropriate, as long as I have no agency restrictions on doing so. I don't. Discussing these matters here has the effect of creating a broader perspective on the matter. That is a good thing, not a problem. If it is embarrassing because of some dirty-laundry, then perhaps its time to do the laundry.

I'll also argue that we are a healthier polygraph profession as a result of this forum and these discussions, including the foolery. We know a lot more about each other and our practices all around the country and the world. We've built friendships and learned from each other. The overall level of trust and communication among examiners is improved. Within the last year, no less than five different examiners have posted charts to this forum for review - and their sometimes difficult charts. That alone is important. People know we'll all learn something, and nobody has gotten squished in the process.

There is nothing wrong with discussing matters of polygraph in a private discussion forum restricted to polygraph examiners.

I think we're better off sticking with the frosty beverage solution.

Indy,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 06-01-2008 12:11 PM            

As far as Ray having concerns with what was presented, I agree this is a great forum to have such discussions. This isn't personal. We all want to better the profession and those in it, Nate and Ray included. I don't think anybody would question that seriously.

The beauty of science is that a person makes a statement, offers his proof / rationale and then sees what remains once it comes out of the proverbial fire.

In Nate's case, he has offered an heuristic for breathing ratios that could indicate CMs. Great, but where's the proof? He may be right, but without proof, he could be wrong, and wrong might be very problematic. That is common sense - not an attack on Nate Gordon.

Since the crowd was small, bringing that info here could have resulted in three responses: 1) a "we have no idea if that's true" response(which seems to be the consensus) 2) somebody could have jumped up and said he or she had real data to support Nate's claims or 3) somebody might have had data to to refute his hypothesis. Instead it ended up with people feeling slighted and wronged. I've never seen weak constitutions in lists of leadership qualities. Just how fragile are our egos anyhow?

Rather than moving the quest for knowledge ahead, Ray has been ostracised for being scientific. I find that to be a symptom of a larger problem within the polygraph community.

Let me just say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Nate saying "this is what I've seen, and I hypothesize such and such." Great. The truth is out, and he's given some people some research ideas, which leads to another problem. (I wish he'd do the research, but that means the old dog has to stop believing he can't learn new tricks, e.g., statistics. I've told him he should keep plugging on, so there's nothing new there.) If somebody tests this and finds he's correct, is he going to call them intellectual thieves for doing the work? How must one proceed to with this claim to avoid offending anybody? (I'm too tired to correct all the dots, but do you get my point?)

We need to be able to have open and honest discussions and build on one another's ideas and work. I don't care if you put my name on anything. Even if you do, it won't be long before the world doesn't remember me. (Name the 8th president of the United States. How about his VP then? Name the fourth VPs of the APA and AAPP.)

When we train others, it's important to state what we know (proven through science) and what we think is true. I don't think that's asking a lot. We've also got to stop calling the good guys bad. I'm glad I now understand Nate's issue with Charles Honts. Prior to his post, I only ever heard Nate call Charles an "intellectual thief" for stealing his idea. I've now heard both sides, and Nate has had an opportunity to rebut. Since he hasn't, I'm comfortable rendering my personal verdict: Nate is wrong and should extend the olive branch, and he shouldn't make such statements as a presenter at conferences. (Theft of intellectual property is a crime, and that's what Nate alleged. If false, and it appears to be - though I believe Nate thinks he was a true victim - Charles actually has a slander case if he can prove harm, without having to jump through all the hoops most must in such cases because accusing somebody of a crime bypasses most of the legal tests.)

The fighting over nothing meaningful needs to stop, and the healthy debates (and some just for fun) should continue here - all with no hard feelings. Again, I know at the end of the day we all want what's best, but that means sometimes we're going to have to admit we're wrong and move on.

posted 06-01-2008 12:23 PM            

However, I don't think I'm osctracized at all.

There may be people who would rather not have to deal with questions and discussion. Oh well.

What I'm not interested in is being part of some kind of dysfunctional professional family that says 'don't ask questions,' 'don't talk about things,' and 'don't talk to outsiders' (AP folks excepted). We're are a smarter and healthier profession for having these conversations.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 06-06-2008 06:02 AM            

1. Dr. Barland's observation concerning the major thrust of Nelson's displeasure with my lecture was correct: the bullets in my handouts were incorrect and referred to places where people could get informaiton concerning CMs, not that Dr. Honts was a major threat to the profession in this area. This was quite obvious from the lecture and the fact that I gave great detail into what Williams and Masche were teaching and never even mentioned Dr. Honts again.

I have corrected this typo in my handouts.

2. The other major problem appears to be my statement that a cardio:respiration rate that drastically alters from a 4:1 ratio causes me suspicion. Where is my evidence? I have seen many of the examinations issued by associations across this country as well as many accredited school tests. Two questions often asked are: "What is the average respiration rate?" and "What is the average cardio rate?" Although there is some variances respiration is generally quoted as around 18, and cardio at 72. I believe this represents close to a 1 cycle of respiration to 4 heart beats a minute. In fact this was not my insight; I am sure this was brought up by a physiologist at a seminar I attended many years ago.

I have now asked four physicians (2 cardiologists and 2 general practitioners) what they would think of a person that appears to have no medical problems with a breathing rate that was very slow (less than 9 per minute) and a pulse rate very fast (over 100 per minute). Three of the medical doctors said they would find it extremely unusual and suspect some type of drug ingestion, and one suspected it could be caused by very extreme nervousness. All four indicated they would be alarmed by this disparity between respiration and heart rate.

I also searched google on "respiratory blood volume fluctuations" and found that most studies into the affects of respiration on blood volume had their participants use CONTROLLED BREATHING to cause the affect on the cardio they were investigating.

I totally agree that we need more involvement by scientists to confirm which of our theories are correct and which are wrong. However, without theorists and innovators where would be? What statistical proof was there concerning the use of a Comparative Response Question? What statistcal proof was there of Psychological Set, Anti-Climatic Dampening, Super Dampening, or any of the traditional scoring methods or techniques being used?

I am in favor of the "scientists" determining which of our theories are correct and which are worng. I am in favor of our profession becoming more professional in our actions and our language.

Lastly, I appreciate the CAPE Board replying that in fact I clearly stated that my lecture was based on my field experience and lectures I have attended over the years. I also appreciate the confirmation that the group as a whole was pleased with my lectures. I have received a great deal of positive feedback and contact from CAPE Members unrelated to this forum.

I will continue to share my experiences and opinions with those who care to listen. When I am shown to be incorrect I will make corrections, as with the typo in my handouts.

I applaud the scientists, who with no personal agenda, take our profession to a new level.

More importantly, I applaud the innovators and theorists, such as Backster, Reid and Keeler, who give the scientists things to work on.

I am scheduled to give two lectures at the APA annnual seminar in Indiana. I welcome anyone that would like to hear about my experiences and theories in obtaining information in a background interview or into the Horizontal Scoring System.

Whether you decide to attend my lectures or not, I hope to see you in Indiana!

posted 06-06-2008 07:49 AM            

------------------
Ben

posted 06-06-2008 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

Three of the medical doctors said they would find it extremely unusual and suspect some type of drug ingestion, and one suspected it could be caused by very extreme nervousness. All four indicated they would be alarmed by this disparity between respiration and heart rate.

---

This argues against your hypothesis. Four doctors said either meds or nervousness. If the meds were taken as a form of CM, then fine, but you haven't made that connection yet. Moreover, the meds would have to affect the CQs and not the RQs, which isn't going to happen, so you've offered no evidence for your suspicions. You have demonstrated that by surveying a very small sample of physicians they believe that such a ratio is odd.

quote:

---

I totally agree that we need more involvement by scientists to confirm which of our theories are correct and which are wrong. However, without theorists and innovators where would be? What statistical proof was there concerning the use of a Comparative Response Question? What statistcal proof was there of Psychological Set, Anti-Climatic Dampening, Super Dampening, or any of the traditional scoring methods or techniques being used?

---

Two things here: first, you miss the point. Ideas are great. Just separate what we know from what we suspect.

posted 06-06-2008 09:26 AM            

Great to see you back at this forum, and even better to see that you've decided to set aside your personal agenda with Honts.

quote:

---

The other major problem appears to be my statement that a cardio:respiration rate that drastically alters from a 4:1 ratio causes me suspicion. Where is my evidence? I have seen many of the examinations issued by associations across this country as well as many accredited school tests. Two questions often asked are: "What is the average respiration rate?" and "What is the average cardio rate?" Although there is some variances respiration is generally quoted as around 18, and cardio at 72. I believe this represents close to a 1 cycle of respiration to 4 heart beats a minute. In fact this was not my insight; I am sure this was brought up by a physiologist at a seminar I attended many years ago.

---

Google normal respiration rate and you'll find a Wikipedia entry that lists normal respiration at 12 not 18 cps. Also, this statement, must be read carefully

I believe that puts the ratio at 6:1, not 4:1, so we begin to see some variation.

18 and 72 are not themselves variance. It would be necessary to know the variance of those rates in order to determine the normal range of respiration/heart-rate ratios.

Here is a link that that says normal rate is 10-14 cps.
http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/MEDICINE/pulmonar/PD/pstep73.htm

That page also supports Donna's assertion in a past threat regarding males showing prominent abdominal activity and females showing predominant thoracic activity.

Another, more fascinating tidbit from that website, is the note about the fact that the patient should not be aware you are counting the respiration, and to count the respiration while pretending to check the pulse. This used to be part of basic first aide, first-responder and EMT training. Its interesting because of the use of deception on the part of the evaluator. In psychological testing, deceiving a test subject is more controversial, but also not unheard of (look at the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test for an example).

Anyway back to the issue of variance, which allows us to determine the normal range – which is sometimes very wide.

A Wikipedia entry (the quick and dirty solution) reports”

quote:

---

When resting, the average adult human heart beats at about 70 bpm (males) and 75 bpm (females); however, this rate varies among people and can be significantly lower in athletes. The infant/neonatal rate of heartbeat is around 130-150 bpm, the toddler's about 100–130 bpm, the older child's about 90–110 bpm, and the adult's about 80–100 bpm.

---

That entry contains a table with this information:

quote:

---

Newborn 130 Older Child 100 Adult 60-101

---

So, using 14:60, we will see that a ratio of approximately 4:1. But then compare that to normal rates for respiration, at 10-14, and pulse rate at 1000, and see that a ratio of 1/10 may still be regarded as normal.

So, once again its all about needing to understand the variance.

Keep in mind that the 60-101 pulse rate reported above seems to be the confidence range (typically 90% or 95%), which is calculated using the standard error of measurement. The SEM is usually the standard deviation of the statistic divided by the square-root of the N (so samples of small Ns like 11 (Freud) or 12 (the Gordon et al study in Physiology and Behavior are so lacking in statistical power that it's generally impossible to draw reliably generalizable conclusions from them).

Krapohl & Dutton (2000) reported normative respiration rates, and provided information on variance (which, as you scientific types know, is the square of the standard deviation). They reported the 90% confidence range as 10 to 23 cpm for males and 11 to 25 for females. This means that a female breathing at 25 cpm is still within normal limits (sounds odd, but that's what the data tells us).

Then try this: 60bpm is still normal pulse, and 25cpm is still normal respiration: So, 60bpm/25cpm = 2.4:1.

This begins to suggest that the normal range for respiration/pulse ratios might extend from 2.4:1 to 10:1. This raises some questions about the potential usefulness of this ratio as a CM signature. Furthermore, keep in mind that the figure 60-100 is unclear whether it is a “normal range” or a confidence estimate for a mean (perhaps someone else knows). If it is a confidence estimate, which seems possible to me, then the normal range for ratios will be even wider than the 2.4:1 to 10:1 estimate.

Clearly, this deserves more study before reaching any conclusions about respiration/pulse ratios as a countermeasure signature. I'm not saying it's wrong, just suggesting that we need to know more.

One way to study this (if you have countermeasure data for study) would be to use Discriminate Analysis or Logistic Regression to determine whether respiration/pulse ratios do or do not provide an effective vector of separation between countermeasure or non-countermeasure data. Imagine a scatterplot of all of your confirmed countermeasure and non-countermeasure data. They might look like a mixed up jumble of CM and nonCM points on an X-Y graph. Geometrically, an effective vector of separation would draw a straight line which separates the two groups. There might be some countermeasure data points that occur on the non-CM side of the line, and some nonCM datapoints that occur on the CM side of the line. The better the separating vector, the fewer points will be on the wrong side of the vector/line. The mathematical/scientific challenge is to find that line, if it exists.

This would be the same type of analysis necessary to evaluate the usefulness of the slow-deep breathing and respiratory blood-pressure fluctuation (that's a vagus roll to you and me) as a CM signature.

I also noticed that you have not responded to what I pointed out as important differences between your Horizontal Scoring System and the Rank Order Scoring System that was subsequently reported by Honts. I'd like to hear more about that.

A very interesting discussion (re the Horizontal Scoring System) would be about your findings regarding the distribution of spot scores. Simply dividing the total score will be unimpressive to many scientists, without some understanding of the location and shape of the distribution of spot scores (and totals). I notice that the Horizontal Scoring System at present does not attempt to provide a statistical classifier or estimate. Can you tell us the form or shape of the distribution, and do you have a solution to problem of spot score variance? This is exciting stuff, because it would move us to towards the ability to provide a statistical classifier for the spot scores.

More later.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 06-08-2008 12:57 PM            

Although I may have missed this in the various posts (my time constraints limit me to speed reading for the most part), I felt compelled to reply for those newer or less experienced examiners who may read this Forum.

The issue to which I refer is the "false vagus roll" or "false respiratory blood pressure fluctuation" which may be mistaken for a CM attempt or for an actual physiological process.

The "false" reading can be caused by the arm on which the BP cuff is located, being too close to the thoracic region of the chest, and when the examinee breathes, the pneumo tube(s) actually press against the cuff which causes a distortion that resembles what we would call a "vagus roll" or "respiratory blood pressure fluctuation."

The way to identify this from the "real thing" is, usually, the examiner will see that what seems to be sympathetic arousal in the BP coincides with the advent of the inspiration stroke in each respiratory cycle, and the BP will generally decrease, in kind, as the expiration stroke of the cycle begins. Simply, using some form of straight-edge implement that allows the examiner to see the BP arousal and advent of the inspiration stroke coincide should determine for them that it is a "false" reading - or artifact.

Obviously, this is correctable by simply moving the BP arm further away from the upper torso so contact will not be made between the pneumo and cardio attachments.

Again, this information is directed at the relative or actual "newcomers" to this profession as opposed to those of you who regularly post here and already possess this knowledge/experience as well as vast PG
knowledge, otherwise.