posted 01-15-2006 04:56 PM            

---

Anybody know who this person is? I feel like I'm reading posts on George's site. Is it just me, or does she already have an agenda?

IP: Logged

posted 01-16-2006 08:58 PM            

---

Barry - I think you are right. I haven't even looked at George's site yet but I was thinking she is an FOG. Taylor

IP: Logged

posted 01-17-2006 12:37 PM            

---

This person is on Geoges web site. Just check the last ten posts section and you will find them.

Jack

------------------

IP: Logged

posted 01-22-2006 12:13 AM            

---

I can't bring myself to check George's site because I just get irritated, but since that's already happened, I'll have to give it a look.

Does she give a longer version of her problems anywhere over there? I'll look, but if somebody knows, save me from the insanity.

IP: Logged

posted 01-24-2006 09:59 AM            

---

Barry, FYI - Stormgal's last entry just regurgitated what George said on his website yesterday. Taylor

IP: Logged

posted 01-24-2006 10:05 AM            

---

BARRY: Here is GEORGES RESPONSE TO JOHN:

8 Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: reponse report from polygraph community to NAS Jan 23rd, 2006, 8:18am
Started by Johnn | Last post by George W. Maschke
Johnn,

In its response to the NAS report, the American Polygraph Association complains:

Quote:We wish to note that the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project.

It is true that the APA was not invited to participate in the deliberations of the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. But neither was anyone else invited. The Committee's deliberations were private, and appropriately so.

A month or so before the NAS began its polygraph study, a proposed membership list of the polygraph review committee was published, and public comment was invited regarding the proposed members. To the best of my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association raised no objections.

Throughout its research review, which lasted well over a year, the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph invited members of the public to send any information or documents they thought relevant. AntiPolygraph.org did so on several occassions. If the American Polygraph Association did not avail itself of this opportunity, they have no one to blame but themselves.

The polygraph review committee also held a series of eight meetings, four of which were open to the public. To my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association did not send any representative to attend any of these public meetings. By contrast, I traveled to Washington, DC to give a presentation at one meeting, and AntiPolygraph.org co-founder Gino Scalabrini attended two of these public meetings. Our friends Drs. Drew C. Richardson and Alan P. Zelicoff also gave presentations at these public meetings.

Despite the American Polygraph Association's absence, the pro-polygraph view did not go unrepresented. Senior representatives of federal polygraph programs were present at all of the public meetings. David Renzelman, the former Department of Energy polygraph program manager gave a public presentation as did Dr. Andrew Ryan of DoDPI, both of whom were also present at the public meeting when I gave my presentation. In addition, the committee held two closed meetings at which the Department of Energy and CIA polygraph program managers, respectively, were able to discuss polygraph matters without any dissenting voices present. A subcommittee was also given a tour and briefing at DoDPI, which, again, was closed to members of the public.

And finally, the reason the NAS relied on only a small fraction of the polygraph studies conducted to date is simply that the vast majority of such "research" fails to meet the minimum standards of scientific rigor.

IP: Logged

posted 01-24-2006 02:00 PM            

---

Hi Guys,

Sorry it has taken me so long to nip stormgal in the bud. its obvious that she is FOG of the month. I've noticed a trend. Each time a FOG starts posting this kind of stuff, they never post their email address in their profile.

Anyway, I've closed that topic because their goal is not to win the argument, their goal is to draw us into debate so that by debating they are able to post as much misinformation as possible. It is a pretty good strategy really, but I'll have no part in it..that's not what this board is about.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com

IP: Logged

posted 01-24-2006 02:10 PM            

---

Barry, I doubt she even read the report. Her last post was almost a direct quote from George.

Good job of responding professionally, as always.

Jack

------------------

IP: Logged

posted 01-24-2006 08:32 PM            

---

I don't think there's any question she didn't read the report.

If you look at Georges response, it's a little odd (how unusual, huh?): The NAS had open discussions, but only the anti-polygraph people showed up with input. It's not their fault (and it isn't if the APA was asleep at the wheel) the NAS only got bad info, but they'll accept the results because they support their position.

Now, will his disciples be smart enough to see George concedes the deck was stacked against polygraph from the beginning (presuming he's right)? I'm not holding my breath.

IP: Logged

posted 01-25-2006 08:06 AM            

---

The APA asked the NAS to allow input to their review and to have experts testify at the hearings. We were not given the opportunity to speak but obviously the hearing was open and a number of APA members were present. The NAS reviewed what "THEY" wanted to review and came to their conclusions. They were given briefings by DODPI and the government (DOE). Much like the old OTA study, if one enters into a review looking for one's point of view, one can normally find it.

IP: Logged