AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Emily Yoffe has written an article about her visit to a polygrapher to see if she could beat the polygraph. See, "Can I Beat a Lie Detector?":

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112734/

To see if she could fool the polygraph, Yoffe used countermeasure information from AntiPolygraph.org as well as, unfortunately, Police-test.net (http://www.police-test.net) (The manual peddled on this website conflates "control" and irrelevant questions and wrongly advises to making one's breathing "very erratic" as a countermeasure.)

damn i just posted this article too...

i was gona see what u guys think about it....

It seems like even a small flexing shows???

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 28, 2005, 05:37 AMEmily Yoffe has written an article about her visit to a polygrapher to see if she could beat the polygraph. See, "Can I Beat a Lie Detector?":

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112734/

To see if she could fool the polygraph, Yoffe used countermeasure information from AntiPolygraph.org as well as, unfortunately, Police-test.net (http://www.police-test.net) (The manual peddled on this website conflates "control" and irrelevant questions and wrongly advises to making one's breathing "very erratic" as a countermeasure.)

Actually, if you think about it, consistently erratic breathing would probably not be scored as anything on the charts, which is what your manipulated steady breathing also attempts to accomplish.  One problem with erratic breathing is it might piss off your examiner, who might take your failure to follow directions as a countermeasure.  But a problem with both intentional erratic breathing and attempted intentional steady breathing is that you might deprive yourself of any help you might have gotten from the respiratory channel.  That's a two-edged sword.  Therefore, perhaps the better choice is just don't mess with your breathing, don't try to hide your past, and be honest with both yourself and the polygrapher.

So how long have you been a polygrapher Mr. Anal? Don't you think that is quite ironic that you are asking him to be honest with his polygrapher when in turn the polygrapher is lying to him?

There is a method to the apparent madness, believe me.  The polygrapher really DOES want the examinee to pass in most cases.  It makes his/her job easier, and it helps alleviate some of the cynicism we develop over time when seeing so many obvious liars.  In their real lives, most polygraphers I know are extremely honest--almost to a fault, if that's possible.

I would elaborate further, but I don't want to do you a disservice like I feel most so-called experts on this forum are doing with fearful examinees.  If that sounds cryptic or mysterious, all I can say is I know what I'm talking about and ask that you believe me as much as you believe George.  He is a strange fellow.  I don't know his story, but I imagine he failed a polygraph at one time and then felt a need to attack something that hurt him.

QuoteI don't know his story, but I imagine he failed a polygraph at one time and then felt a need to attack something that hurt him.

Assuming that is the case, is there anything wrong with that?  As a polygraphster can you honestly say that false positives do not happen?  Those that are victimised by your imperfect machine can be devastated.  They can miss out on a dream job for which they are otherwise highly qualified; they can jeapordize their current job, or be stigmatised with false accusations.

Ones concern for his fellow man is perhaps what motivates thsoe who speak out and expose this dangerous fraud.  

Or would you rather those who are victim of polygraph fraud simply lick their wounds and go away silently, so polygrahsters can continue to abuse others?

OHHHH Jeff, learn how to spell buddy..

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!  Thank you for the laugh, Jeffrey!  Not all polygraphsters are bad, you know.

I can't know for sure what their motivation is for keeping this silly site going, but the most logical explanation would be that they probably deservedly failed a polygraph exam and continue to lie to themselves AND others by perpetuating their psychobabble.

Whenever you see someone attacking what many people believe is a good thing, while claiming to dedicate themselves to helping their fellow men, you still have to ask yourself what he or she is getting out of it.  Attention, perhaps?  That would be more likely.  As for me, I'm posting on here mostly for my own amusement.  Georgie and Co. know I'll become bored with them after awhile.  I mean, an intelligent person can only tolerate a bunch of bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers for so long before he or she moves on to more interesting pursuits.  Right now, I'm having fun ridiculing the ridiculous.   ;D

Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 11, 2005, 02:42 PMWhenever you see someone attacking what many people believe is a good thing, while claiming to dedicate themselves to helping their fellow men, you still have to ask yourself what he or she is getting out of it.  

Spoken like a true polygraphster.  Always suspicious of everybody else not in your own pathetic inner circle.  Maybe Geroge gets an ego boost from this site.  Who cares.  He's not charging any money for anything here.

And as far as referring to others as pathetic whiners -- I prefer to judge people by the tone of their posts.  With those metrics, you win hands down.

Quote from: seascapes on Feb 11, 2005, 12:08 PMOHHHH Jeff, learn how to spell buddy..

That certainly added intelligent dialog to this conversation...

With those "metrics"?  Never heard that reference myself, Jeffrey my boy.  But then again, I never heard of a polygraphster, either.  Thank you for teaching us all a new vocabulary.   :D

Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 11, 2005, 09:43 PMWith those "metrics"?  Never heard that reference myself, Jeffrey my boy.  But then again, I never heard of a polygraphster, either.  Thank you for teaching us all a new vocabulary.   :D

Well Anal, you really should get out more.  Stop gazing at polygraph charts and pick up a dictionary.  

Here, let me help--
Here's one for the suffix of -ster
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ster
 I think it goes well with polygraph-ster.  As in prankster, gangster, etc

And here's one for metrics-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metrics
see the definition where it says "a standard of measurement".

I know I said earlier I didn't want to get drawn in on a childish discussion.  Now that I've defined the meaning of polygraphster for you, would you care to offer a substantive reply?

Note to audience -- my suspicion is that AnalSphincter is pro-polygraph, and quite possibly a polygrahper/ster himself.  

Take everything you see in an internet forum with a pound of salt (not just a grain).  But judge the poster by the quality of his posts.

Sure, Jeffery, I've heard of the metric system.  But you used the word improperly in that sentence.  You may as well have said: "With those inches, you win hands down," which would have had humorous connotations of commenting favorably on the size of someone's genitalia.

Didn't you say you were done responding to me?  Couldn't help yourself, could you?  I have that irresistible effect on people.   ::)

And while I suspect you used the -ster suffix incorrectly and had to look it up in the dictionary to try for a comeback, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it really is a humorous alteration of the correct word.   :D

As for quality of posts, when have you posted anything of substance yourself?  You call polygraph a "dangerous fraud," yet you seem to know nothing about it save for the paranoid prognostications you've read on this ridiculous website.

Oh, what the hell--cutting and pasting is easy, Jeffery, so pardon my laziness.  Here's the post to very senior user Gino Scalabrini.  I hope it clears up some of your faulty information:

OK, Gino.  Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once.  We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage.    
 
In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit.  The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80%  on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception.  Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53).
 
Pretty darned good, huh, Gino?  It gets better, so read on:
 
In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%.  It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors.  (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.)  In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts).   However, because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners.  The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation.  What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners.  In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%.  The studies used by the Committee are as follows:
 
Horvath, F.S. (1977)  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136.
 
Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988)  A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.
 
Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection.  Nature, 308, 449-450.
 
Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988)  A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040.  Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
 
Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238.
 
Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application.  The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
 
So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino?
 
(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!)
 
 
Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read.  This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about.  The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world.  Take your best shot, Gino.  I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby!
 
Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be?  He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life.  He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.

Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 12, 2005, 02:01 AMSure, Jeffery, I've heard of the metric system.  But you used the word improperly in that sentence.  You may as well have said: "With those inches, you win hands down," which would have had humorous connotations of commenting favorably on the size of someone's genitalia.

While your genitalia remark may be found funny by some, it is irrelevant to this converstation.

The term "metrics" in the context in which it was originially used by me is a commonly and correctly used term, and does not only mean the "metric system."  Look it up if you don't believe me.

Quote
Didn't you say you were done responding to me?  Couldn't help yourself, could you?  I have that irresistible effect on people.   ::)

While I find some of your posts informative, I'd hardly consider that an outgrowth of  your irresistibility.  

Quote
And while I suspect you used the -ster suffix incorrectly and had to look it up in the dictionary to try for a comeback, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it really is a humorous alteration of the correct word.   :D

Believe me, Anal, just as you chose a humorous name, I intentionally used the word polygraphster (used correctly, I might add) as a way to associate those who engage in polygraphy with gansters, fraudsters and pranksters.

Quote
As for quality of posts, when have you posted anything of substance yourself?  You call polygraph a "dangerous fraud," yet you seem to know nothing about it save for the paranoid prognostications you've read on this ridiculous website.

I'm not an expert in the polygraph field.  Freely admitted.  All I know is what I have read on this form AND WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED MYSELF.  Now, label that whining if you wish, but that is where I am speaking from.

All of what you wrote in your last post wasn't worth writing until you got to the last paragraph.  You needn't feel compelled to respond to every single thing I write, Jeffery.  Don't work yourself so hard.

No, you aren't a polygraphster.  Since all you have to go on is what you've read on this forum (much of which is erroneous or highly exaggerated), AND your extremely limited experience, don't be so quick to speak about polygraphsters and polygraphics ( ;D) as if you are an expert.

Quote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 12, 2005, 05:55 PM Since all you have to go on is what you've read on this forum (much of which is erroneous or highly exaggerated), AND your extremely limited experience, don't be so quick to speak about polygraphsters and polygraphics ( ;D) as if you are an expert.

What part of either of the DoDPI manuals is higly erroneous?
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-interrogation.pdf

So... you look up the word 'metrics' yet?

Don't need to look up a word I already know.

And what about the DODPI manual do you find erroneous?

QuoteOK, Gino.  Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once.  We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage.  

Don't be so quick to dismiss the intellectual capacity of the readers of this site. Besides, there are only four field studies of CQT polygraphy that have passed peer review for publication in scientific journals and are thus worth reading.
 
They don't prove that CQT polygraphy works reliably at better than chance levels. Check David T. Lykken's treatment of the topic in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd edition, 1998) (pp. 133-135).

Quote
Field Studies    There are four field studies of the CQT that have been published in scientific journals.²⁰ Three of the four include casse where the verification of guilt and innocence was not entirely dependent on polygraph-induced confessions. Although not published in a peer-reviewed journal, the Barland and Raskin study (Barland's Ph.D. research under Raskin's direction,²¹ which its authors have repudiated, produced two interesting results. First, the principal scientific advocate of the CQT, Dr. Raskin, who independently scored all the charts, classified more than half of the innocent suspects as deceptive. Second, knowing that most of the suspects tested were probably guilty, Raskin scored 88% of them as deceptive. Since 78% of them were in fact guilty, if we classified 88% of the total group as deceptive and the rest as truthful entirely at random, we should achieve an average accuracy of 71%. Raskin's average accuracy, based on the polygraph charts, was also 71%.  

The studies by Horvath and by Kleinmuntz and Szucko both used confession-verified CQT charts obtained respectively from a police agency and the Reid polygraph firm in Chicago. The original examiners in these cases, all of whom used the Reid clinical lie test technique, did not rely only on the polygraph results in reaching their diagnoses but also employed the case facts and their clinical appraisal of the subjects' behavior during testing. Therefore, some suspects who failed the CQT and confessed were likely to have been judged deceptive and interrogated based primarily on the case facts and their demeanor during the polygraph examination, leaving open the possibility that their charts may or may not by themselves have indicated deception. Moreover, some other suspects were cleared by confessions of others, even though the cleared suspects, judged truthful using global criteria, colud have produced charts indicative of deception. That is, the original examiners in these cases were led to doubt these suspects' guilt in part regardless of the evidence in the charts and proceded to interrogate an alternative suspect in the same case who thereupon confessed. For these reasons, some undetermined number of the confessions that were critical in these two studies were likely to be relatively independent of the polygraph results, revealing some of the guilty suspects who "failed" it. The hit rates obtained in these studies are indicated in Table 8.2.

In the study by Patrick and Iacono, 13 of the 20 innocent suspects were confirmed as such independently of polygraph results (e.g., the complainant later discovered the mislaid item originally thought to have been stolen). As can be seen in Table 8.2, 9, or 45% of these 20 innocent suspects were wrongly classified as deceptive by the CQT. Only one guilty suspect could be confirmed as such from file data independent of CQT-induced confessions; his charts were classified as inconclusive by the CQT. The remaining guilty suspects in the Patrick and Iacono study were all classified solely on the basis of having been scored as deceptive on the polygraph and then interrogated to produce a confession. Understandably, when examiners trained in the same method of scoring independently rescored these charts, they agreed with the original examiners in 98% of cases.

Table 8.2. Summary of Studies of Lie Test Validity That Were Published in Scientific Journals and That Used Confessions to Establish Ground Truth

 
 

	Horvath   (1977)	Kleinmuntz   &Szucko   (1984)	Patrick &   Iacono   (1991)	Honts   (1996)	Mean
Guilty correctly   classified	21.6/28   77%	38/50   76%	48/49   98%	7/7   100%	114.6/134   85.5%
Innocent correctly   classified	14.3/28   51%	32/50   64%	11/20   55%	5/5   100%	62.3/103   60.5%
Mean of above	64%	70%	77%	100%	73%

[table notes omitted]

The recent study by Honts illustrates that publication in a refereed journal is no guarantee of scientific respectability. The meticulous study by Patrick and Iacono was done with the cooperation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Vancouver, B.C., and showed that nealy half of the suspects later shown to be innocent were diagnosed as deceptive by the RCMP polygraphers. This prompted the Canadian Police College to contract with Honts, one of the Raskin group, to conduct another study. A polygraphy instructor at the college sent Honts charts from tests administered to seven suspects who had confessed after failing the CQT and also charts of six suspects confirmed to be innocent by these confessions of alternative suspects in the same crimes. Knowing which were which, Honts then proceeded to rescore the charts, using the same scoring rules employed by the RCMP examiners. Those original examiners had, of course, scored all seven guilty suspects as deceptive; that was why they proceeded to interrogate them and obtained the criterial confessions. Using the same scoring rules (and also knowing which suspects were in fact guilty), Honts of course managed to score all seven as deceptive also. The RCMP examiners had scored four of the six innocent suspects as truthful and two as inconclusive. We can be confident that all innocent suspects classified as deceptive were never discovered to have been innocent because, in such cases, alternative suspects would not have been tested, excluding any possibility that the truly guilty suspect might have failed, been interrogated, and confessed. Honts, using the same scoring rules and perhaps aided by his foreknowledge of which suspects were innocent, managed to improve on the original examiners, scoring five of the six as truthful and only one as inconclusive. The difference in Hons' findings from those of the other studies summarized in Table 8.2 is striking.

Surely, no sensible reader can imagine that these alleged "findings" of the Honts study add anything at all to the sum of human knowledge about the true accuracy of the CQT. How it came about that scientific peer review managed to allow this report to be published in an archival scientific journal is a mystery. Since the author, Honts, and the editor of the journal, Garvin Chastain, are colleagues in the psychology department of Boise State University, it is a mystery they might be able to solve.


[Notes:]

20. F. Horvath, The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 127-136; B. Kleinmuntz and J. Szucko, A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection, Nature, 1984, 308, 449-450; C. Patrick and W.G. Iacono, Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76, 229-238; C. Honts, Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application, Journal of General Psychology, 1996, 123, 309-324.

21. G.H. Barland and D.C. Raskin, Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Examinations of Criminal Suspects, (Report 76-1, Contract 75 NI-99-000), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1976.
[/size]

QuoteThis is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about.  The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world.

Like many of your arguments, the same claim could truthfully be made by experts in the field of astrology.

Just because you have associated with the top experts in a fraudulent field means nothing. When it comes to ability to detect deception, the field as a whole is incompetent. Association with its luminaries therein means nothing.

QuoteI probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby!  

Too bad. I was looking forward to the intellectual challenge. I was hoping that perhaps you might even start some name calling—I sometimes feel envious that George gets all of the personal attacks thrown at him by the angry polygraphers and there are none left for me. When it comes to letting us know that what we are doing is having a profound effect on the art of polygraphy, nothing shines like a personal attack or two by an angry polygrapher. We then follow up with another rational argument instead of a personal attack. It's like putting a red cape in front of a bull.

QuoteOh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be?  He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life.  He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.

Speaking of this "ridiculous" forum, you certainly seem to spend enough time here lately. And the only entertainment George provides is when a polygrapher tries to step up toe to toe with him and gets embarrassed. At least I find it entertaining...

So charge, Toro, charge!

"What the hell was that?  You've got three seconds.  Five, tops!  That's why they call it a quip, not a slooooowb!" -- Mauricio, Shallow Hal

I'm sure that took a long time to type, Gino.

As I said before, we could throw out referenced studies like two religious scholars arguing over the interpretation of an obscure Biblical passage.  Now I've thrown out a few and you've thrown out a few.  It didn't help either of us much, but hopefully it pointed the more intelligent curious examinee in the right direction for more information.  At least by reguritating some scholarly information you've redeemed yourself with this forum crowd and recovered somewhat from our previous encounter.  I will allow you that.  I really don't want you to have type so much again.

Our views differ, clearly, Gino.  I'll say it again, though: My views have actual experience to support them.  Am I the "Grand Poo-Bah" of polygraph before whom all others should bow?  No, but at least I know what I'm talking about through study AND experience.

George isn't particularly intimidating, Gino.  He is also a regurgitator of information, much of it misinformation.  He can, and surely will, speak for himself, so you don't need to come to his rescue.

Thank you for your time and your informative post.

Wow!

George, Gino-

Perhaps you can change the name of these forums to Anal's Second Home.  I haven't seen a member post on virtually every board, that many times.  Obsess much? :o :o

Don't worry.  I won't be with you all forever.  I become easily bored with talking to people whose skullbones are thicker than their brain matter.  I am making the most of my time on this forum for as long as I am here.  When I am gone, this forum will again revert to a haven for George, Gino and others who first frighten the little boys and girls with stories of the boogeyman of polygraph, and then tuck them in with fairy tales of King Countermeasure and the knights of the poly table.

I'll be missed by someone when I'm gone.

Maybe it's time that you find another forum so you can respond to your own postings again ;D

Did somebody say something?  Guess it was nobody again. 

I may often disagree with Anal (primarly because he is a polygrapher) but I do find the dialog interesting and welcome his participation.  He seems to take it as well as he dishes out, so let's not run him out of town too quickly.  

Besides, having pro-polygraphics posts on this board gives new visitors something to judge things by.  I'm sure after reading George and Gino's posts and then reading posts from Anal, they will form a better opinion on the true boogeyman of polygraphics.

QuoteI may often disagree with Anal (primarily because he is a polygrapher) but I do find the dialog interesting and welcome his participation.  He seems to take it as well as he dishes out, so let's not run him out of town too quickly.

As much of a shock as this may be to some, George and I value his participation as well. He is probably the first to represent the pro-polygraph position on this forum by attempting to justify his position with facts instead of simply throwing personal attacks at George.

Open discussion should be the primary goal of any online forum, as we often learn the most from those with opinions different from our own. AntiPolygraph.org's forum is uncensored, and is designed for the free exchange of ideas. For the first three years, registration was not required and no posts were deleted.

In the summer of 2004, a polygrapher posting under the moniker "I-SMELL-BS" began to spam virtually ever thread in the forum with personal attacks against George and other contributors to this site.

His posts contributed nothing other than provide an example of typical polygrapher behavior to our readers that one could not otherwise comprehend before sitting in the "hot seat."
 
For this reason, we have instituted a new policy where posts consisting solely of name calling and personal attacks will be moved to the AntiPolygraph.org Discarded Posts Forum (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=trashbin).

Take a look at some of the posts made by ISBS. This poster's goal was simply to drag down the level of discussion and decrease the signal to noise ratio of the forum. For this reason, he was shown the door.

QuoteGeorge isn't particularly intimidating, Gino.  He is also a regurgitator of information, much of it misinformation.  He can, and surely will, speak for himself, so you don't need to come to his rescue.

It's good to hear that someone in the polygraph community is not intimidated by him.

Apparently former American Polygraph Association Milton O. "Skipp" Webb, Jr. thinks that George Maschke is pretty intimidating. A few years ago, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn extended both men invitations to a moderated debate on the topic of polygraphy. George accepted the invitation. It seems that Mr. Webb was too yellow to accept the challenge.

I really can't comment on Webb's reasons for not going to a public debate.  Perhaps he's camera shy.  Or maybe he's just not a good debater.  When some politicians debate they look stiff and wooden.  Others, like JFK, glow with charisma.   Appearances can be very deceiving, though, and so many voters are uninformed and will look at charisma and good speaking ability and never see beyond that when they cast their vote.

More likely, though, is that Webb understands that he and the polygraph community have nothing to gain by such an event, which would probably be "decided" by who could regurgitate research studies the best.  The polygraph community is very large and well-ensconced in our society, so what would it have to gain by going to a public debate or a TV event and fielding criticism, much of it unfounded?

I do know that George is an excellent regurgitator, and he might be pretty quick on his feet.  I suppose that after failing a polygraph he really wanted to retaliate, and he has a nice little forum here to rule over and spread both good information and misinformation, and the latter serves his retaliatory purposes quite well.

I am pleased that my time on this forum is appreciated, Gino.  ( :D)  I want you all  to know that you are extremely fortunate to have me here for a short time.   Most of the polygraph community considers this a totally worthless forum that is not worth responding to.  Sometimes I feel the same way.

To be completely honest, I'm quickly tiring of it all.  I have little to learn here: Actual experience teaches me more each day than all the idea swapping on this forum could ever do.  Debating on this forum is like debating topics of philosophy or religion, which I discovered in college and elsewhere is really wasted time.  What people know and what they think they know are often so inseparable in their minds that even if they have no actual experience in the subject they simply won't budge an inch.

AS, I agree with you that "I'm not going to dignify these people with a response" may very well have been Skip Webb's game plan for dealing with us.

Still, I'm not sure his plan is all that wise.

I know you feel our lack of experience as polygraphers should cause the information that we put out on polygraphy to be discounted. As I mentioned to you on another thread, I disagree (my analogy that one must not read Tarot cards to convincingly speak on Astrology being a fraud goes well here). On this point, I think that we can agree to disagree.

Still one thing that is undeniable is that there are a large number of people who see it as I do and believe that there is merit to the information put out by AntiPolygraph.org. The National Academy of Sciences was impressed enough with George to invite him to speak at one of their committee meetings on polygraphy.  Eric Zorn, a writer for one of the biggest papers in America certainly thought that he was enough of an authority on polygraphy to take on Mr. Webb. Also add Andrew Kantor of USA Today—the list goes on and on.

The fact is this movement is gaining steam as more and more people find out about the fraud that is polygraphy. These people are telling their friends, and so on. As more people learn about polygraphy, its one and only utility—the ability of the process to make people confess to things that they otherwise would have withheld—will vanish.

Eventually, I bet there will come a point where the APA types reverse course and step away from the policy of not dignifying criticism with a response. Hopefully (at least for George and I), it will be too little, too late.

Actually, it's a bit surprising that there is so little opposition to the polygraph.  No polygrapher can deny that taking a polygraph is an intrusive, unpleasant experience.  I have had multiple exams myself, and none of them was a fond memory.  If members of congress had to take regular polygraphs, then you might get your wish of seeing it go away.

But I don't think the polygraph will go away unless something better replaces it.  Like it or not, Gino, the vast majority of people pass their polygraph.  Then there are a significant number whose polygraph results are inconclusive, even after a second polygraph.  Finally, there are a very, very small minority who actually fail the polygraph outright, and many of those, believe it or not, really deserved to fail.

You may liken the polygraph to tarot cards, but until you've done something and seen it work time and time again, don't be so quick to discount it when all you have to go on our a small number of lab studies that support your particular agenda.

When something better does come along, it may be awhile before it supplants the polygraph.  More likely, it will simply be used in conjunction with the polygraph to augment its accuracy even further.