Post reply

Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
Log in
Sign up

May 13, 2026, 05:29 PM

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board
► Polygraph and CVSA Forums
► Polygraph Procedure
► Post reply ( Re: Rogue's Gallery of Quotes )

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

[quote author=George W. Maschke link=msg=3357 date=1024776669]
Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson was the FBI's senior scientific expert on polygraphy before his retirement from the Bureau last year.

With regard to Mr. Sullivan's quote, how can you be sure it is taken out of context? You apparently haven't read his book, [i][url=https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=485.msg2350#msg2350]Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers Vietnam[/url].[/i] Here's the context (p. 174):

[quote][size=13pt]Case officers' job is to recruit agents who can provide significant information. Their performance is evaluated based on the number of agents they recruit, as well as the quality of the information the agents provide. Polygraph examiners, in contrast, are responsible for trying to authenticate or validate case officers' agents. Our performance is evaluated on the number of admissions we obtain and the amount of information developed from those we test.

Although it is a bit of an oversimplification, it can be said that our successes--getting agents to admit that they are not who they say they are--are case officers' failures. When an agent or asset fails a polygraph test, the case officer's roster of agents is diminisheds he might have to retract previously reported information, and he might be criticized for poor agent handling. This is particularly difficult for a case officer to accept when the agent makes no admission. [b]Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG).[/b][/size][/quote]

Did we take this last sentence out of context in placing it on the AntiPolygraph.org home page? I think not. But if you think Mr. Sullivan meant something other than the plain meaning of the highlighted words, please explain.
[/quote]

Attachments: (Clear attachments)

Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB

Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached

Click or drag files here to attach them.

Insert width (px):

Insert height (px):

(Clear attachments)

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

What sport is the Super Bowl associated with?:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Sullivan Quote

- Jun 22, 2002, 05:31 PM

Thanks for the quote from his book - I now put him in the same category as the other idiots you quoted.

Posted by George W. Maschke

- Jun 22, 2002, 04:11 PM

Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson was the FBI's senior scientific expert on polygraphy before his retirement from the Bureau last year.

With regard to Mr. Sullivan's quote, how can you be sure it is taken out of context? You apparently haven't read his book, Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers Vietnam. Here's the context (p. 174):

QuoteCase officers' job is to recruit agents who can provide significant information. Their performance is evaluated based on the number of agents they recruit, as well as the quality of the information the agents provide. Polygraph examiners, in contrast, are responsible for trying to authenticate or validate case officers' agents. Our performance is evaluated on the number of admissions we obtain and the amount of information developed from those we test.

Although it is a bit of an oversimplification, it can be said that our successes--getting agents to admit that they are not who they say they are--are case officers' failures. When an agent or asset fails a polygraph test, the case officer's roster of agents is diminisheds he might have to retract previously reported information, and he might be criticized for poor agent handling. This is particularly difficult for a case officer to accept when the agent makes no admission. Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG).

Posted by Eastwood

- Jun 22, 2002, 03:33 PM

Yes, that's quite a "who's who" list of individuals mocking the polygraph on your home page: Ames, Deutch, Drew Richardson (who is he??), etc. As for the quote attributed to John Sullivan (a former senior examiner wouldn't say that - I'm sure it's taken out of context.) What a group. Your credibility is at zero.