posted 06-21-2006 01:29 PM            

I have watched a couple of episodes on PAXTV and I'm just not sure. Last week in one of the exams Ed Gelb asked a relevant questioned designed determine if information was ommitted from a report that the examinee had no responsibility to submit or approve. In another exam he asked if the examinee had used weed other than the one time he admitted since January 1st. I found this odd since in the conversations with the examinee he cleary was familiar with and used the term Marijuana rather than "weed". I wish I had copied the wording but I was a bit bumfuzzled at the complexity of the questions in situations where simple direct questions were available.

posted 06-21-2006 02:13 PM            

Ed is good at what he does, and he's taught a lot of examiners a thing or two, so I'm sure he had some reason for what you saw. I can't remember if he posts here or not, but you can always ask him. His website has his email address on it. Just query his name in a google search.

posted 06-21-2006 03:54 PM            

The information ommitted was from a document John Kerry wrote which did not include a child being killed in a war situation. On the other case, I found it uncomfortable to hear Gelb say 'weed'. Like Barry said, if they cut and paste in the show, the examinee may have referred to weed in a segment that was not shown.

I am not making any negative comments about Gelb as I am sure he is an excellent examiner. However, I wonder if doing a show like that is helping the polygraph profession. We have the anti site identifying the questions for countermeasures, but I am not sure conducting them on TV with the narrator identifying the questions (and showing computer charts with reactions) is the best approach. The show is definately more professional than the show with the examiner giving a thumbs up or down.

By the way, if any of you know Gelb and haven't checked out the Anti site - George is trashing him real bad over his doctorate degree. They have him on their front page with the copy of Georges complaint and APA's response. If you know and respect him, he could probably use some kind words.

Taylor

posted 06-21-2006 06:30 PM         

Ed Gelb along with myself and others, have been "trashed" by George in the past and I am sure it will happen again. Getting trashed or "slimed" as they call it on this board, by George, has almost become an honor. It is nice to know that George is pissed off enough to take a pot shot at one of us! Few of us have ever responded to George and he simply gets so pissy that he begins to respond to his own posts. If his target ignores him, he moves on to another rant and rave!
Ed Gelb is a registered member on this board and does post from time to time. I have not heard from him here in a while though.

posted 06-21-2006 09:13 PM            

News footage and taped interviews are viewed of the subject; the (show host) interviews each participant for their side of the story. Dr. Gelb runs the exam.

In my opinion this show does not help as it does not accurately represent what occurs in a polygraph situation. I can't say it hurts as I haven't seen (this) show.

Based on the synopsis provided by the TV station, after all is done to get to the exam I don't see how there can possibly be more than a few minutes used for each exam after each identified phase and commercials.

To conclude, the host "reveals to our subjects whether they have been vindicated or branded a liar and gets their sometimes extreme reactions to the test results." The host reveals? Vindicated/branded?

I didn't care for the series years back by Dr. Gelb with F. Lee Bailey & it doesn't sound as though I'll spend much time with this one. Not my type of entertainment.

END.....

posted 06-22-2006 10:33 AM            

Ed Gelb knows all about the stuff on George's web site.

He has a reputation of being an excellent examiner. He wrote a booklet on I&I, and he's done a lot of teaching on polygraph topics. If memory serves me correctly, he is a past president of the APA (long before I got into this stuff). He loves polygraph, and he really wants to see all examiners be the best each can. He wouldn't do anything to intentionally hurt polygraph, so I'm sure he believes he is doing something positive. (I don't think the show hurts polygraph, but I suspect most who watch it like the entertainment value anyhow. Quite frankly, they give you enough pre-polygraph info to know what the results are going to be anyhow. My gullible wife hasn't yet been surprised by any results.)