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.
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.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Dan Mangan
 - Jul 19, 2015, 09:54 PM
URGENT: This document is REQUIRED READING for anyone with an interest in the "test."

Here's one most telling snippet of the Inspector General's report:

"The review team could not view tapes and/or digital recordings for six sample items because the tapes and/or digital files were either missing or blank."

This seems to be an alarming trend in the polygraph field.

As for the rest of the IG's report... res ipsa loquitur

Perhaps the heretofore evasive polygraph indu$try's scientists can explain the discrepancies.

[cue crickets]

Posted by Evan S
 - Jul 19, 2015, 04:02 PM
A somewhat redacted document from the NRO OIG is available for viewing.  George may have already downloaded this document.

http://fas.org/irp/nro/ig-polygraph.pdf