Outing the Trolls: The Polygraph Peanut Gallery (A Cast of Characters Starring Eric S. Johnson, Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd, and Louis Irving Rovner)

[Administrator]

In recent weeks, AntiPolygraph.org was subjected to a coordinated effort by a number of polygraphers to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Posts were characterized by numerous personal attacks, and the posters ignored repeated personal messages admonishing them to keep it civil. All have been banned from further posting.

AntiPolygraph.org has received confirmation of the identities of some of these posters, and we now present:

The Polygraph Peanut Gallery

A Cast of Characters

• palerider / Paradiddle was played by Eric S. Johnson, a private polygrapher in Indiana who specializes in sex offender screening;
  
  
• Ludovico was played by Raymond Nelson, a private polygrapher in Colorado who specializes in sex offender screening:
  
  http://www.raymondnelson.us
  
  
• Dragon Lady / Wonder Woman was played by Donna Taylor, a private polygrapher in Utah who specializes in sex offender screening:
  
  http://www.utahpolygraphservices.com
  
  
• Mysterymeat / S queezecheeze was played by Ted Todd, who works for the Contra Costa County, California district attorney's office and also has a private practice:
  
  http://www.tedtodd.net
  
  
• and StudebakerHawk was played by none other than Dr. Louis Irving Rovner, Ph.D.:
  
  http://www.polygraph-west.com
  

These polygraphers, all well-respected members of the polygraph community, succeeded in demonstrating, in a way that we could not possibly have done, the immaturity and lack of appetite for reasoned discourse that are all-too-prevalent amongst polygraph "professionals."

[G Scalabr]

If our government could penetrate al Qaeda half as well as we have penetrated polygraph organizations, there wouldn't be a terror threat to our country.

Just remember, every time you speak to someone about polygraphy, there is a good chance that the person's loyalty lies with US.

This is probably the most indisputable proof ever that polygraph countermeasures are effective and cannot be detected. Because with the amount of information being leaked to us on a constant basis from so many polygraph organizations, one would think that they would simply run a few polygraph examinations to find out who the leaker is...

Even a random screening program should be able to deter this behavior, right?

Since no one seems to want any part of Dr. Richardson's challenge, how about polygraphing the members of your little stunt here on this message board as of late, and publicly outing the leaker of info here on this forum?

My challenge to operators Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd and Dr. Louis I. Rovner is as follows: conduct specific exams of each other and anyone else that knew about your shenanigans and tell us...

Who's the rat?

[Brettski]

yep, won't be missing them anytime soon.

[getrealalready]

Great work, George and Gino.  Nonombre wrongly questioned your research assesment skills.  I suppose even he won't be foolish enough to question your nicely rewarded investigative and interrogation skills.  If you guys can correlate it, it would be nice to see a listing of some of the more immature postings correlated with the true names of these clowns.  All of the victims (and those who will be taking polygraph exams) who come to this site should see such a permanent and well displayed listing.  Perhaps Todd's employing district attorney's office might like to see some of his prose.  Good job again, guys.  The truth shall prevail.

[Sergeant1107]

It was certainly interesting to see how many of the recent batch of trolls allowed their personal bias against me to cause them to incorrectly brand me a liar and a poser, simply because I politely and respectfully disagreed with their point of view.

It certainly does nothing to enhance whatever professional reputation they have, to see that anyone who voices an opinion with which they disagree (no matter how politely that opinion is stated) is accused of lying and is subjected to repeated (and completely irrelevant) ad hominem attacks.

I am quite confident that if I had for some reason been willing to let any of them polygraph me, their personal disdain for my opinions would have caused them to conclude I was lying about being a police officer, right up to and probably even after the point where I produced my ID and badge.

It makes me (and probably many others) wonder how much of their DI or NDI conclusions are based on their make-believe science of polygraphy, and how many are simply the result of their personal bias or prejudices...

[digithead]

George,

Well done! I go away for a week and look at all the excitement that I've missed...

Anyhow, I was wondering if you were considering a forum membership agreement that specifically states that personal attacks and intentionally misleading statements would be cause for suspension and possible banishment. It seems to me that this would deflect criticism that you're only banning polygraphers. If people had to agree to membership conditions prior to posting, it might stop further incidents like these recent attacks...

It is also very interesting to see who these people were. I looked at their webpages and with the exception of Dr. Rovner, none had the appearance of any serious graduate education. Again, I think that speaks volumes about who becomes a polygrapher. I wonder in the cases of Honts and Rovner if they were polygraphers before they became researchers as it is very hard sometimes to discard old beliefs, especially when one's identity is wrapped in it...

Keep up the good work...

-digithead

[G Scalabr]

Digithead: It seems to me that this would deflect criticism that you're only banning polygraphers.

We are actually on the record as having warned and admonished our own supporters when they have behaved abusively toward polygraph examiners who have made respectful posts on this forum.

I don't think that it has ever risen to the level of requiring that someone be banned. When George or I have sent messages to those who have attacked polygraph examiners here personally, the warnings have been heeded and the conduct ceased.

The same cannot be said for polygraph examiners. Multiple warnings were sent out to Raymond Nelson, Ted Todd and Dr. Rovner to cease their conduct. None complied and several warnings were replied to with flippant messages even worse than the originals.

[George W. Maschke]

digithead,

Registered users of the message board are presented with AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy at the time they register and must explicitly agree to it. In moderating this forum, we prefer to err in the direction of too little rather than too strict moderation. The decision to ban a poster is an especially difficult one, and we generally prefer to admonish posters privately when they have crossed the line of civil public discourse.

Our posting policy applies to all, regardless of viewpoint. A polygraph critic who was banned after repeated uncivil postings is gelb disliker. And no one has ever been banned from this message board merely for expressing an opposing view.

The decision to ban the four posters was made only after repeated violations of our posting policy and after private admonishments were ignored (and in some cases, as Gino mentioned, responded to with flippant remarks). The extraordinary decision to publicly reveal the identities of these posters was made only after it was made known to us that their effort was part of a deliberate and coordinated attempt to hinder, rather than foster, meaningful discussion and debate of polygraph issues.

Since this thread was started, Raymond Nelson (one of the four "outed trolls") has registered using his real name. He will remain welcome to post here as long as he keeps it civil. And I have extended an invitation to Lou Rovner to return to this forum to publicly address the criticisms I raised regarding his recent polygraph examination and testimony in an Ohio criminal case.

[Sergeant1107]

On other boards it is common for anyone banned under one screen name to be prohibited from registering again under any screen name.

How do you feel about that?  I looked at the posting policy and didn't see that point addressed, though the term "banned" would seem to imply the person, rather than the screen name, has been asked to leave the site permanently.

[nonombre]

Maschke and company...

You have lost far more than you think you have gained.

The examiners you "banned" did not engage in any conduct that had not been pointed at them time and time again over the several years this site has been in existance...

What you did do was to engage in what every petty dictator has always done.  Silence the opposition.  You have done that well.  Bravo, you are quite proud I am sure.  Quite proud you have silenced the "trolls" I believe you called your opposition? Gee, and I thought you were above name calling... 

What you also succeeded in was to forfit any claim you ever had that this was a fair and impartial board.  It is now painfully apparent this site is nothing more than "Spin"...Designed to tell just one side of the story.  The side of the poor unfortunate sole who actually believed he was "entitled" to FBI employment...

Thank GOD they never hired you, for people of your psychological make-up is just what thieves and traitors are made of (yes, we have learned that through intense research)...I now believe the FBI actually did the right thing in the end and Jack Trimarco was one hell of an agent. I am very proud of his work.  His retirement has made the world a less safe place...

I expect to now be "banned" for my "insubordination"...

[George W. Maschke]

Sergeant1107,

Given the ready availability of anonymous proxies and e-mail accounts (to which we actually point users to facilitate anonymous posting), it is not possible to ban individuals, as they can easily return under a new persona.

[getrealalready]

Nonombre,

I do believe you are jealous.  Maschke and company successfully outed four of your compatriots.  You failed miserably in your one attempt to out one ex-polygraph examiner.  Not to worry though...that coupled with your research flub regarding Mr. Maschke's education guarantees that you will be around.  Who else would provide the comic relief?  Chill, kiddo...they might even pay you for guest appearances.  

[George W. Maschke]

AntiPolygraph.org has received confirmation that the lead role of palerider / Paradiddle was played by polygrapher Eric S. Johnson of Indiana, who specializes in sex offender screening. He has been added to the list.

[G Scalabr]

The polygraph "professionals" recently exposed for the "anonymous" fusillade of personal insults and attempts at fear mongering here on this forum have apparently retreated to the safety of a pro-polygraph message board.

Instead of addressing the challenge I posed to them--namely that they use polygraphy to determine who betrayed their identity to us and to publicly identify this person--they have chosen to unleash a new barrage of personal attacks.

Finally, I've been included along with George.  I suppose that I've finally made it in life.

As strange as this sounds... After the shenanigans that have been pulled by this small group of polygraph examiners in recent weeks, I feel the need to speak in defense of polygraph examiners as a whole.

What I want to make clear is that the behavior of these examiners is of a repugnant nature that is out of the ordinary among polygraph examiners. It represents a new low, and should not be considered typical of polygraph examiners in general.

Yes, polygraphy is not backed by good science--especially in the screening context. Yes, the entire procedure is almost always riddled with the examiner making false statements to the examinee. Yes, minor admissions are frequently spun into things that appear to be of far greater significance. Yes, polygraphy is easily defeated by deceptive persons using simply countermeasures.  

Still, I don't think that most polygraph operators conduct their business on a daily basis through acts of malice. Most are well-meaning, but in my opinion simply wrong.  

A few examiners have actually had the courage to step forward to us and engage in debate on the issues instead of the incessant "sticks and stones" garbage.

The names Elmer Criswell and Milton O. "Skip" Webb (at least as of his latest postings here on the forum) immediately come to mind. Of course I disagree with them. Still, they are gentlemen who have earned my respect.

I remind our readers that the instant group is likely lashing out because they know that their careers are in serious jeopardy right now. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes trying to defend the integrity of an examination against an attorney armed with the contents of their posts they made "anonymously" here.

Again, just as how the actions of one corrupt police officer often take on a life of their own through sensationalist media reports that end up painting all officers with the same broad brush...

The behavior of the polygraph examiners currently assailing us is that of a rogue group and should not be taken as representative of the polygraph community as a whole. It is simply a small group individuals who happen to be polygraph examiners that have apparently gone completely out of their minds.  

[getrealalready]

Gino,

I followed your link to polygraphplace.  I notice that they refer to your site, but don't give a link to it.  No wonder.  When I searched Google with "polygraph," (not anti-polygraph, but polygraph) a short while ago, I notice that your site comes up number one (even ahead of the American Polygraph Association's site) and their site came in at number 8.  No wonder they are apoplectic.  You are the electronic portal to polygraphy for the whole world.  You gotta luv it.  Keep up the good work, guys!  BTW, since they now misrepresent on their site why they were banned from this site, you might still want to put together some sort of a greatest quotes from the peanut gallery to include your warnings to them and their responses.