AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

As noted earlier on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=176), Larry Sinclair (http://www.youtube.com/user/larrysinclair0926), who claims (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY) (thus far without evidence) to have used cocaine with, and performed fellatio on, Barack Obama in 1999 has accepted a $100,000 polygraph challenge from one-time Internet pornographer Dan Parisi, who runs the website WhiteHouse.com (http://www.whitehouse.com). Sinclair is to be polygraphed on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 by an as-yet-unnamed polygrapher in or near New York City. Political blog BigHeadDC reports that Sinclair, who stands to make $100,000 if he passes the polygraph,  "is expected to hold a press conference in the coming days." (https://antipolygraph.org/s/bigheaddc-sinclair)

Parisi avers (http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments_110.aspx) that the polygrapher performing the services is "a renowned expert who has been involved in quite a few high-profile cases," and that the results will be "verified by a second renowned expert."

Update: I have posted to YouTube the following commentary on why -- pass or fail -- Mr. Sinclair's polygraph results will be evidence of nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/v/R1uMEXiv1ng

--

Note (2023-09-09): The video that Larry Sinclair uploaded to YouTube making these allegations was long ago deleted. A copy is now attached to this post.

George,

you wrote:  "pass or fail -- Mr. Sinclair's polygraph results will be evidence of nothing"

then why post this information?

If he fails, this board (or he) will claim he told the complete truth and must be one of the numerous false positives resulting from the polygraph process.  This of course will be proof that polygraph doesn't work.  

If he passes, he will most assuredly be a false negative, simply lucked out or another "success" of TLBTLD...

Sackett

Sackett,

I'm not suggesting for a minute, as you suggest, that whatever the result of Mr. Sinclair's polygraph examination, it will be wrong. My point (well-known to longtime readers of AntiPolygraph.org) is that because polygraph testing has no scientific basis, because it's inherently biased against the truthful, and because outcomes can be easily manipulated through the use of simple countermeasures, the results of Mr. Sinclair's polygraph test will provide no reliable evidence regarding his veracity.

George,

you wrote, "I'm not suggesting for a minute, as you suggest, that whatever the result of Mr. Sinclair's polygraph examination, it will be wrong."

No, you stated it will be "evidence of nothing."

Further, you wrote:  "...polygraph testing has no scientific basis, because it's inherently biased against the truthful, and because outcomes can be easily manipulated through the use of simple countermeasures..."

I know this was your opinion as I AM a "longtime reader" and I am aware of your promotion of your (free) book.  I was just wondering, where exactly was that opinion/finding published in the NAS study which your followers quote so frequently as the foundation of their core beliefs?

Sackett

Quote from: George_Maschke on Feb 22, 2008, 06:25 PMGeorge,

you wrote, "I'm not suggesting for a minute, as you suggest, that whatever the result of Mr. Sinclair's polygraph examination, it will be wrong."

No, you stated it will be "evidence of nothing."

Precisely. The point I'm trying to make is that no inferences regarding his truthfulness can be safely drawn from his polygraph results, however they may turn out.

My concern is that if Mr. Sinclair passes (the outcome that would also provide the greatest publicity boost for Dan Parisi and WhiteHouse.com), Barack Obama's detractors will seize on it to bolster the credibility of Sinclair's claims.

Conversely, if Mr. Sinclair fails, Mr. Obama's supporters might predictably welcome this result as confirmation that Larry Sinclair is a liar.

But because of the unreliability of polygraphy, neither conclusion is warranted.

QuoteFurther, you wrote:  "...polygraph testing has no scientific basis, because it's inherently biased against the truthful, and because outcomes can be easily manipulated through the use of simple countermeasures..."

I know this was your opinion as I AM a "longtime reader" and I am aware of your promotion of your (free) book.  I was just wondering, where exactly was that opinion/finding published in the NAS study which your followers quote so frequently as the foundation of their core beliefs?

Sackett

For documentation of my assertions regarding the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).

Anon,

  As I told you earlier in a PM, if what you say happened, actually happened, then the examiner did not render an opinion as it would have been impossible to do so.  And if you were attacked, as you claim, I would expect you would be eager to report the assault to the police.   ;)  

As for Mr Sinclair, I think the test results, assuming he actually goes through with the test, will be interesting.  It appears to be a specific issue test which historically have a high degree of accuracy.  Not perfect and not 100%, but very accurate.

Well all,

apparently the polygraph folks couldn't wait and they conducted Sinclair's testing today. Information to be posted on whitehouse.com on Monday or Tuesday.

The fall-out will sure be interesting, regardless...


Sackett

Quote from: George_Maschke on Feb 22, 2008, 08:18 PMAs for Mr Sinclair, I think the test results, assuming he actually goes through with the test, will be interesting.  It appears to be a specific issue test which historically have a high degree of accuracy.  Not perfect and not 100%, but very accurate.

Some nine decades after William Moulton Marston (whom the FBI considered a phony and a crackpot (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3368.msg23428#msg23428)) unveiled his lie test, the lie detector has yet to be proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. Because the procedure lacks both standardization and scientific control, its sensitivity and specificity are unspecifiable.

I posted a comment to Larry Sinclair's YouTube video OBAMA'S LIMO SEX & DRUG PARTY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY) calling attention to my video commentary, and received a prompt reply from Mr. Sinclair (larrysinclair0926 (http://www.youtube.com/user/larrysinclair0926)):


It seems from other of Mr. Sinclair's YouTube posts that his polygraph was actually conducted not in New York City, but in Los Angeles. While I  can't tell who conducted the polygraph (though it sounds like something up Ed Gelb's alley), Mr. Sinclair indicated that the results were going to be reviewed by an expert on polygraph countermeasures in Salt Lake City whose name he states is "Gordon (something)." The obvious inference is that he's referring to Gordon H. Barland (http://www.barlandpolygraph.com/) (a registered user and occasional poster on these boards):

In yet another YouTube comment made last night, Mr. Sinclair states that he "did not fail" the polygraph:

A photograph posted to WhiteHouse.com reveals that the polygraph operator who conducted the lie detector "testing" of Larry Sinclair is indeed "Dr." Ed Gelb of Los Angeles, whom AntiPolygraph.org has exposed as a phony Ph.D. (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml) Gelb, a past-president of the American Polygraph Association, obtained his "doctoral degree" from an unaccredited, mail-order diploma mill.


It's interesting that WhiteHouse.com chose a man of such questionable credibility to assess the credibility of Larry Sinclair.

WhiteHouse.com has announced that Larry Sinclair failed his polygraph examinations (http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments.aspx?start=&NewsID=116) with "Dr." Ed Gelb. Because this information was published before the polygrapher reviewing the charts provided his evaluation, we can suppose that this will not be a "blind" evaluation, that is, the reviewer (believed to be Gordon H. Barland (http://www.barlandpolygraph.com) of Salt Lake City) will presumably be aware of how the original examiner scored the charts.

WhiteHouse.com has posted (http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments.aspx?NewsID=117) Ed Gelb's reports on the two polygraph "tests" that he gave Larry Sinclair on Friday, 22 February regarding his sex and drugs allegations. They may be downloaded, respectively, directly here:

http://www.whitehouse.com/files/intercept1_2.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.com/files/intercept3_4.pdf

WhiteHouse.com also confirms that "quality control" is to be performed by Dr. Gordon Barland (who, unlike "Dr." Gelb (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml), actually has a doctoral degree):

QuoteWhen we get the report of the second Polygraph expert who did the quality control we will post them up. The Quality Control Polygraph expert is Dr. Gordon Barland.
Update 10:15 PM EST. We have not received the Quality Control polygrapher report yet. We will have it sometime tomorrow. As soon as we have it we will post it. That will be the last post on this matter. This incident needs to be laid to rest.

It would appear that WhiteHouse.com is going back on its earlier promise (http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments_116.aspx) to post video of Sinclair's polygraph examination:

QuoteWe will have all of the written results posted on the site in the next week including video taken of the Polygraph testing so there will be full disclosure and transparency on our part and eliminate any suspicion of any wrongdoing or manipulations of the testing or the results by Whitehouse.com or the polygraph experts.

In other news, Mr. Sinclair has started a blog (http://larrysinclair0926.spaces.live.com/) since learning that he did not pass his polygraph and has posted, among other things, his e-mail correspondence with Dan Parisi, the owner of WhiteHouse.com. Among other things, Mr. Sinclair is upset that "Dr." Ed Gelb, whom Mr. Parisi selected to conduct the test, is not, after all, a "Dr." as Parisi (no doubt relying on Gelb's own misrepresentations) had represented him to be in his correspondence with Sinclair. Note that Parisi, who by now should be aware of Gelb's academic fakery, continues to refer to him as "Dr. Gelb" on WhiteHouse.com.

To date, Mr. Sinclair has offered no evidence to support his accusations against Barack Obama.

Larry Sinclair, in an interview  (http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/25/exclusive-interview-with-obamas-accuser/) with political blog Big Head DC, states that Ed Gelb presented himself as a PhD to him:

QuoteBHDC: There have been several claims that Gelb is not a real PhD — did he present himself as one to you? Did he seem professional?

LS: Gelb did in fact represent himself to me as having a PhD that I found out after returning home was in fact not the case. He did appear somewhat professional with a constant shaking, however he did not control anything about the process and in fact was taking his direction from Robert Braddock of WH.com and Dan Parisi.

It's worth noting that the American Polygraph Association -- the foremost polygraph trade organization -- does not consider Gelb's ongoing fraud to be a violation of its ethical standards (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3092.msg21841#msg21841).

Despite his experience with Mr. Gelb, Sinclair in closing avers that he will take another polygraph:

QuoteBHDC: What are you going to do next regarding this whole situation?

LS: I will continue to put my story out there. I am getting some assistance in amending the lawsuit for refiling, and please note, it has not yet been dismissed, nor has the recommendation to dismiss been received or written as claimed by the judge identified on the Web. I am not going away, I am not recanting anything, and I am fighting on, especially with the tip I received this date. I will do a polygraph arranged by me, video tape it non-edited and with the findings released before stopping the camera and will post it before Tuesday if all goes well.

Regular readers of AntiPolygraph.org may recall (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3679.msg25600#msg25600) that last year, Ed Gelb performed a polygraph test on Wendy Ellis, a former prostitute who claimed that U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) had been a customer. That polygraph examination was also paid for by a pornographer: Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine.

Comparing the polygraph report that Gelb prepared on Ellis with those he prepared on Sinclair, one notes a glaring difference: for the Ellis polygraph report (https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Attachments/wendy_cortez_ellis.pdf), he scored the charts both manually and with a computerized scoring algorithm:

QuoteThe resultant polygrams were traditionally (manually) scored and then scored by computer using an algorithm developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University. This algorithm has been validated by the National Security Agency and is presently being utilized by the Department of Defense. The results of this scoring are included in this report. The scoring indicates that the examination was "NDI" (no deception indicated) with a probability of deception of less  than .01 when Ellis answered the relevant questions as indicated above.

The results of the computerized examination indicate that Wendy Ellis was telling the truth when she answered the relevant questions.

During the post test interview, Ellis was advised of the results of the examination.

But Gelb only mentions the results of his hand-scoring of the charts in his two reports for Sinclair (concerning his sex (http://www.whitehouse.com/files/intercept1_2.pdf) and drug (http://www.whitehouse.com/files/intercept3_4.pdf) allegations, respectively). Why did Gelb fail to include computerized scoring results for Sinclair's polygraph examinations? Gelb's omission raises the question of whether there was a discrepancy between his hand scoring and the decision rendered by the computer.

In addition, note that while Ellis was advised of the test results at the conclusion, it appears that Gelb failed to advise Sinclair that he had failed during the post-test interview.

WhiteHouse.com has announced  (http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments.aspx?start=&NewsID=118) that it will post neither its video of Ed Gelb's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair, nor Gordon Barland's review of the results:

QuoteAfter the events of yesterday and this morning we will no longer be posting the video of the Polygraph testing or the secondary Polygrapher Expert's results. To be accused of taking a bribe to suppress this story along with all of the hate mail and messages sent by Larry Sinclair supporters who believe we did something to taint the results has been very disturbing.

No matter what we put up it will never be good enough for his supporters. Mr. Sinclair was also given every opportunity to let us talk to the limousine driver to corroborate his story and he failed to do so. This will be the last post on this matter as this matter needs to be put to bed. We will be going back to regular reporting.

Sadly, WhiteHouse.com's decision to withhold this information can only serve to fuel (with some justification) speculation regarding the true motivations for such a decision and what actually transpired in Gelb's polygraph suite.

George,

1.  What is your speculation with respect to the "true motivations" for such a decision?
2.  What are you suggesting "actually" did occur in Mr Gelb's polygraph suite?  Are you suggesting that Mr Gelb's test was rigged?  :o

Readers,

Many accusations but few facts.  The polygraph is "scientific."  In some other post it is more "of an art than a science."  How many lives and careers have been destroyed by an accusation but not by a jury?  A negative is hard to disprove.  Those who protest must be guilty.  You are either with me or against me but you cannot have a dissenting opinion even in good faith.  Is this what our country has come to?

To put it bluntly, it is scary.  Are you a communist?  Does your religion colour your judgement?  The intellegence community has bought into the argument a crutch, it is called the polygraph.  People do not fail, it is the machine that was not interpreted properly after the fact.  I was accused of deception at one time only to prove that I am even more than willing to sacrifice my family's future to protect the Constitution.  I stand by my values in the face of losing everything I hold dear.

Stand accused of violating the almighty polygraph and you will not serve our country.  My grandfathers who served in the Battle of the Bulge would have probably failed the polygraph.  They were not perfect men, they were not perfect patriots, but they were willing to get killed sent as fodder knowing that the Panzers could blow the turret off of any Sherman Tank the Germans could sight.  They were sent as a "delaying force."  Only one in five survived and most of those did so with heavy losses.  I saw them live with the ghost of those they held dear only to feel guilty that they somehow survived.

I only wish that I could ask them what they thought of a machine that could "read their thoughts."  From what they showed to me in time and affection over many years,  they wanted me to judge them by their actions and deeds, not by what others thought of them.  This polygraph business has got to stop.  It is more of a scare tactic than fact.

Regards.

Although WhiteHouse.com did not post it, Gordon Barland did in fact complete a review of Ed Gelb's polygraph examinations of Larry Sinclair. WhiteHouse.com sent Barland's review to Mr. Sinclair, who has posted it on his "Windows Live Space." (http://larrysinclair0926.spaces.live.com/default.aspx) AntiPolygraph.org has made word-searchable versions of Gelb's reports and Barland's review available here:

• Gelb's First Polygraph Exam (Sex Allegation) (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/sinclair-polygraph-gelb-sex.pdf)
  
  
• Gelb's Second Polygraph Exam (Drug Allegation) (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/sinclair-polygraph-gelb-drugs.pdf)
  
  
• Barland's Review (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/sinclair-polygraph-barland-review.pdf)

Gordon Barland's review shows Ed Gelb's statement in his reports that "The polygrams [polygraph charts] were 'blind scored' by another expert examiner" to be false (assuming Barland is the examiner to whom Gelb referred). In scoring Sinclair's polygrams, Barland was not blinded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind) with regard to any of the following salient details:

• The name of the original examiner;
  
  
• The name of the examinee;
  
  
• The nature of the examinee's allegations;
  
  
• The actual polygraph questions asked (as opposed to just their type -- relevant, control/comparison, irrelevant, etc., which is all that is needed to score the charts);
  
  
• The decision(s) rendered by the original examiner

That Gelb, a past-president of the American Polygraph Association, could consider Barland's review to have been "blind" helps illustrate just how far removed polygraph practice is from the scientific method.

Barland's report makes it clear why Gelb failed to mention the results of any computerized scoring of his polygraph charts. Although Barland, in his non-blinded review agreed with Gelb's hand scoring of the charts, in the one case (regarding the drug allegation) where Barland ran a computerized scoring algorithm on the chart, contrary to Gelb and Barland's hand-scored finding that Sinclair had failed, the computer determined that he had passed (and with flying colors at that)! Barland writes (at para. 6):

QuoteI scored the printout of the second series of charts (regarding cocaine), but was not satisfied with the quality of the electrodermal channel on one of the charts. When I received the digital data and optimized the channel, I used the Federal 7 position scale and the 2007 DACA reaction criteria to evaluate the charts. I scored the charts as -7 (Deception Indicated). I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithm PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from .00 to 1.00. This was inconsistent with my numerical analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DACA guidelines indicate that when there is conflict between the examiner's or reviewer's score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence. The computer algorithms are considered to be useful supplements, but they are not definitive, I therefore concur with Mr. Gelb's conclusions that Mr. Sinclair showed indications of deception on both test issues.

So the PolyScore algorithm (that Ed Gelb so hailed  (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3863.msg28469#msg28469) in his polygraph report for Wendy Ellis) found Sinclair truthful with a less than 1% probability of deception! But in this case, Gelb and Barland (who cannot have been unaware of the firestorm of controversy that would have resulted had they found Sinclair non-deceptive with regard to this question) somehow reached a completely opposite conclusion!

Gelb did not provide Barland with the computerized data for the examination on Sinclair's sex allegations, and thus he was not able to run PolyScore on them.

"...How many lives and careers have been destroyed by an accusation but not by a jury?  A negative is hard to disprove.  Those who protest must be guilty.  You are either with me or against me but you cannot have a dissenting opinion even in good faith.  Is this what our country has come to?"

The scariest thing is that these guys, for all practical purposes, have the "final say" with regard to the hiring at NSA/CIA/FBI.  Much to the chagrin of the hiring committees at these agencies.

It's only the national security!

The latest issue of the weekly tabloid Globe Magazine features an article (http://www.rense.com/general81/globe.htm) about Larry Sinclair (http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/) that addresses, among other things, his lie detector tests with Ed Gelb:

QuoteNow fueling further controversy in the ugly scandal is a disputed polygraph test that was set up and administered by an Internet Web site. Sinclair took up an offer from WhiteHouse.com, which is not connected to the government, to take a lie-detector test about his Obama charges. He was paid $10,000 for taking it and promised $100,000 if he passed.

He flew to Los Angeles and took the test administered by former American Polygraph Association president Dr. Ed Gelb on Feb. 22.

WhiteHouse.com reports that Sinclair failed on two key points -- the claim that he had sex with Obama, and the charge that he saw Obama smoke crack.

"There was deception indicated in both tests," the site reported on Feb. 24, adding that "another expert examiner" independently corroborated the findings. But Sinclair tells GLOBE he was suckered into taking the test and was "set up" to look bad by failing the polygraph.

He says he's been told Obama's camp is behind the lie-detector offer -- and also contends the Obama campaign put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to "set the entire thing up."

"They put a condition in there that I'm not allowed to take another polygraph test for four weeks," he says.

"This was a tactic designed to allow Obama to pretty much lock up the nomination before I can take another test and prove my story once and for all!"

In his defense, Gelb tells GLOBE, "I have never taken a bribe to do anything improper in my life. This is a profession based on truth, honesty, integrity. I don't think you're ever going to find me in a position to compromise that."

But of course "Dr." Gelb did compromise that by misrepresenting himself as a Ph.D. (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml) in marketing his polygraph services.

Larry Sinclair (http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com), who -- as you may recall -- in a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY) posted in January of this year challenged Senator Barack Obama to a polygraph showdown over alleged gay sex and illegal drug use, will be holding a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC this Wednesday, 18 June 2008 at which he promises -- at long last -- to corroborate his allegations against Sen. Obama. One wonders how he might do so. Will he announce that he has passed a polygraph test?

::)

Quotehttp://www.mmdnewswire.com/barrack-obama-illegal-drug-3492.html

Barrack Obama Illegal Drug Use Allegations to be Corroborated at Press Conference
June 13, 2008

PRESS RELEASE

Washington, D.C. - Despite death threats and an organized campaign to prevent him from speaking publicly, Larry Sinclair – on June 18, 2008, at 3:00 PM in the Lisagor Room of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045, will for the first time reveal the corroborating evidence for his claim that on November 6 + 7, 1999, Larry: (i) met Obama at a gay bar where Barrack Obama arranged for the purchase of federal Schedule II drugs, (ii) which Larry and Obama thereafter ingested and (iii) then engaged in hi-risk, homosexual activities.

Larry's story burst on to the scene on January 18, 2008, when Larry released a short video containing these allegations on YouTube.com.  That video has had close to a million views yet the mainstream media has completely ignored Larry's serious allegations.  Thereafter, a clearly orchestrated campaign to discredit Larry began on the internet which forced Larry to resort to federal court to protect his reputation.

At the press conference, Larry will (i) reveal the corroborating evidence for his allegations regarding Obama, (ii) address the time-line of the response of the Obama campaign to his allegations and the murder of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director of Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's now-former church and (iii) the significance of the refusal of U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. to allow Larry's case to proceed.

Media Contact:
Montgomery Sibley
mbsibley@earthlink.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
202-248-3973

- End -

In a press conference timed to coincide with that which Larry Sinclair is scheduled to hold at the National Press Club on Wed. 18 June, WhiteHouse.com, which engaged faux Ph.D. Ed Gelb (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml) to polygraph Sinclair, will be presenting its case:

Quotehttp://www.whitehouse.com/FullStory.aspx?NewsID=1083

WASHINGTON, June 17, 2008: Whitehouse.com will hold a press conference regarding the Larry Sinclair controversy on June 18, 2008 in the Visagor Lounge of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045. Signup will start at 3:00 PM, and the actual conference will start at approximately 4:00 PM, following the conclusion of Mr. Sinclair's press conference, which is scheduled earlier in the day.

At the press conference, Whitehouse.com will describe how, in February 2008, Mr. Sinclair accepted an offer from Whitehouse.com to take two professionally-administered polygraph examinations to test the veracity of his explosive allegations. After the initial polygraph expert examined the results and made his conclusions, Whitehouse.com was accused of taking a $750,000 bribe to suppress and or alter the results of the polygraph examinations.

During the press conference, Whitehouse.com will release the results of the polygraph examinations, the reports of the experts, and a video of Mr. Sinclair taken while the examinations were being administered.

Whitehouse.com focuses on giving average Americans a greater voice on issues facing the country. Whitehouse.com, which is celebrating its 11th year, has been visited by over 100 million people since its inception in 1997. We are not affiliated with or endorsed by U.S. Government.

As mentioned on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=197), I've posted to YouTube a follow-up video commentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8Ys8iXTiU) on WhiteHouse.com's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8Ys8iXTiU

So, why haven't you reported that Larry Sinclair was arrested after his D.C. press conference?

Indeed, Larry Sinclair was arrested on an outstanding warrant (reportedly for insurance fraud (http://themitchandnanshow.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/breakingbreakingbreaking-15/)) in the state of Delaware promptly after the conclusion of his press conference. To the best of my understanding, he is still in a District of Columbia jail awaiting extradition to Delaware. There is also an outstanding warrant (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html) for his arrest in Colorado on felony theft and forgery charges.

Early on the morning of Tuesday, 17 June (Central European Time), I received an e-mail message from Mr. Sinclair seeking my opinion regarding his polygraph examination and asking if I would call him or his lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, that day. While I do not in any way endorse Mr. Sinclair's claims, I saw no harm in sharing with him my views regarding his polygraph examination (which in any event, were already posted here). I thought it best to put my remarks in writing as a protection against being misquoted, and I thus e-mailed him a summary of my observations regarding the polygraph examination that WhiteHouse.com arranged for him. I later forwarded this e-mail to Mr. Sibley, who wrote back asking whether it would be okay to refer the media to me. I replied stating that while I in no way endorse Mr. Sinclair's allegations, I would be happy (as always) to answer reporters' questions regarding the polygraph.

And that is how I ended up being mentioned in Mr. Sinclair's press conference, video of which (//%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://larrysinclair.org/press.html) is available from LarrySinclair.org (http://www.larrysinclair.org):

http://larrysinclair.org/download/press.wmv

My e-mail to Mr. Sinclair has also been included (without my having been consulted, although I don't object) among other documents on the site:

http://larrysinclair.org/download/maschke.pdf

WhiteHouse.com (http://www.whitehouse.com) held its press conference shortly after Mr. Sinclair's press conference ended. Dan Parisi, the proprietor of WhiteHouse.com did not provide the video of Sinclair's polygraph examination that had been promised in his press release, and after reading prepared remarks, he cut off questions and ended the press conference after only four minutes. WhiteHouse.com has since been scrubbed of any mention of the press conference.

Audio of both press conferences has been posted to Archive.org (http://www.archive.org/details/LarrySinclair-NationalPressClubJune182008Full) in a single audio file. I have extracted the WhiteHouse.com portion and attached it (https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Attachments/whitehouse-dot-com-press-conference-18-06-2008.mp3) to this post.

I think it's fair to say that while Larry Sinclair's credibility has been thoroughly impeached, no thanks are due to the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

Thanks so much for posting this parisi audio file - otherwise, the whole event has disappeared!?

Hello,
One question...
In your opinion was there something fishy with the whole white house polygraph.

I think it is fair to say that whitehouse didn't want to perpetuate the rumour once they found out Sinclair was lying as it makes no sense for them to have recieved a bribe when they could have made so much more.

Michael,

Keeping in mind that polygraphy itself is as fishy as a basket of herring left to rot under the sun for several days, yes -- as I've explained earlier in this message thread -- there is something particularly fishy about the manner in which the polygraph examination arranged by WhiteHouse.com for Larry Sinclair was conducted.

At the same time, I'm not suggesting that Sinclair's allegations against Barack Obama are true (far from it!), nor is it my purpose to extend hope to the lunatic fringe who desperately want to believe Sinclair and grasp at the straw of his questionable polygraph results for succor.

It's interesting how pornographers are becoming such big consumers of polygraph exams nowadays.  It strikes me just how many similarities there are between them and the two biggest consumers of polygraphs: the United States government and law enforcement agencies.

I belive that his man is telling the truth and that we the american people have better start praying like never before. :'( :'

Quote from: Regina Childress on Nov 10, 2008, 12:54 PMI belive that his man is telling the truth and that we the american people have better start praying like never before. :'( :'

You must be kidding  ;D ;D ;D

Since this topic was last discussed here, Larry Sinclair has published a book (which I haven't read) in which he discusses, among other things, the polygraph examination that Dan Parisi arranged for him to undergo with Ed Gelb in Los Angeles.

Parisi has now filed a defamation lawsuit (see attached PDF) against Sinclair (and others):

Quotehttp://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/03/27761.htm

Obama Accuser Accused
By RYAN ABBOTT

     WASHINGTON (CN) - A political blogger claims a gadfly defamed him with "wild allegations" about colluding with then-Senator Barack Obama's campaign to hide the murder of a church choir director, cocaine use and gay sex. Daniel Parisi sued Larry Sinclair in Federal Court, and also sued a radio talk show host, Sinclair Publishing, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, and Books-a-Million.

     Parisi claims Sinclair published a book in 2009 that accuses him of colluding with Obama's adviser David Axelrod to rig a polygraph exam that would debunk Sinclair's story that he had sex and took cocaine with then-Senator Obama.

     Parisi claims that in 2008 Sinclair posted "wild allegations regarding the purchase, sale and use of drugs and sexual activity by and between Sinclair and Obama," on YouTube. That video was still posted on YouTube this morning (Thursday).

     Parisi says Sinclair's book is riddled with false information, including that he criminally conspired with Obama and his campaign; that he accepted money from the campaign; that he rigged Sinclair's polygraph; that he and Obama were somehow involved in the murder of a church choir master; and that his website, Whitehouse.com, contained pornography.

     Parisi claims that Barnes & Noble, Amazon and Books-A-Million sell Sinclair's book with claims such as "100% true," and "staggeringly true story," to sell the concoction of nonsense.

     "Sinclair's book and the statements published by other defendants did not contain a scintilla of factual support for their wildly false and reckless untrue statements," Parisi says.

     Parisi claims he sent a cease-and-desist order to Sinclair, who responded, "HELL, NO."

     In his complaint, Parisi says his own website, Whitehouse.com, "paid Sinclair $20,000 by check as part of a modified agreement" for Sinclair to take a polygraph exam. Parisi claims the "modified agreement" came after "He [Parisi] offered to pay Sinclair $10,000 to take polygraph examinations and it pay him $100,000 if the examinations showed Sinclair was telling the truth. Whitehouse.com, Inc. later paid Sinclair $20,000 by check as part of a modified agreement."

     Parisi claims Sinclair "showed deception" on both his polygraph exams, and never produced the evidence he claimed to have.

     Parisi seeks millions of dollars for defamation and business disparagement. He also sued radio talk show host Jeffrey Rense, of Ashland, Ore.

     Parisi is represented by Richard Oparil with Patton Boggs.

On Monday, 28 February 2011, a hearing was held in Parisi v. Sinclair et al. on a motion to dismiss. Blogger and lawyer Andrew Kreig (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig) attended the hearing and has an interesting commentary on why this case, which has received virtually no media coverage, has significant constitutional implications. See "Libel Suit Hearing In DC Explores Political Free Press Issues." (http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=266:libel-suit-hearing-in-dc-explores-political-free-press-issues-&catid=44&Itemid=28)

A video recording of Edward Gelb's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair was offered as evidence in Parisi v. Sinclair (Case 1:10-CV-00897-RJL in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia). The video may be viewed on-line here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GwF0QKkWAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFazvInXFhI

Based on the video and previously-released documentation, I have prepared a critique and evaluation of Gelb's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair, which is attached to this post.

Interesting post. In Mr. Barland's conclusion he states:

"I believe that the irregularities in this examination would be more likely to create an inconclusive result than an erroneous one."

Really Mr. Barland?--you have conducted experiments to show you can predict how an "irregularity" affects the tracings? It never fails to amaze me how these polygraphers pull such things out of their hats; it's akin to Astrology and Phrenology.

I think the most interesting revelation from the video is that it appears that PolyScore had Sinclair passing both question series. It's interesting that PolyScore arrived at results that are the polar opposites of those reached by Gelb and Barland in their hand-scoring of the charts.

Quote from: stefano on Sep 13, 2011, 11:05 PMInteresting post. In Mr. Barland's conclusion he states:

"I believe that the irregularities in this examination would be more likely to create an inconclusive result than an erroneous one."

Really Mr. Barland?--you have conducted experiments to show you can predict how an "irregularity" affects the tracings? It never fails to amaze me how these polygraphers pull such things out of their hats; it's akin to Astrology and Phrenology.

Irregularities also imply deviation from a standard. What's that standard? What are the deviations from it?

Former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson has conducted an interview of Larry Sinclair that will be made available via X later today (Wednesday, September 6th):

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson

It's not clear whether the topic of Sinclair's polygraph examination will be raised, but there is considerable discussion of it on X at the moment.

The interview is here:

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1699543001473900670

Larry only mentions the polygraph around from the 32:23 - 32:40 mark when he speaks about losing access to his YouTube account shortly after taking a polygraph test.  That is all. Tucker Carlson does not ask Larry anything about the polygraph test.

I guess the polygraph is still not a big political issue because it only applies to a select few people and the majority of the world still think it works based on TV and movies.

On 6 September, following the release of Tucker Carlson's interview with Larry Sinclair, Luke Rudkowski, who runs a YouTube channel called WeAreChange, spoke with Larry Sinclair in a live stream. In this case, the polygraph was directly addressed. The following link begins at the point where Rudkowski asks Sinclair about the lie detector:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnY_f6YiyME&t=1207s

Those who have been following the story of Larry Sinclair may be interested to know that he has stated on his website (https://iamlarrysinclair.com/larrys-discovery-decision/) that he was diagnosed with stage three stomach cancer in November 2024. His latest posts (https://x.com/seeknmeann) on X indicated that he was in a Mexican hospital receiving treatment for edema and was in danger of losing his feet. His last post on X was dated 22 July 2025.

A series of posts to Larry Sinclair's X account (https://x.com/seeknmeann) indicate that he died on Wednesday, 27 August 2025. He was 63 years old.