FL Polygraph Examiner Denny Connor & Mike Alaiwait Background?

[Dan Mangan]

according to your study? lmao

My micro-study -- I use that term because it involved just one (1) examiner -- concentrated on incident-specific criminal tests administered by the police.

As the late great Dr. Drew Richardson often pointed out, such exams are subject to influence, as from case detectives.

So, I'll rephrase...

How accurate is your run-of-the-mill PCSOT "test"?

After you claim the percentage of accuracy, kindly cite the proof.

[Dan Mangan]

[cue crickets]

People, watch -- and learn.

The self-proclaimed world's most honest forensic psycho-physiologist doesn't know whether to shit or go blind.

Why? Because there is no there there.

The "test" is a sham.

[Joe McCarthy]

I'll direct you to the 2011 metta analysis study.  I am however, and I am not alone here, disappointed in the lack of follow up studies of any notoriety, unless someone can point any out on the polygraph side of things. 

Sadly, when you are ostracized and blacklisted, CEU options are limited. 

Having said that, I sleep just fine at night offering the service that I offer, which has been fair, independent, and unbiased to all.    I must be doing something right, because the blacklisting and slander campaign is till going here in Texas, despite my testing outperforming the vast majority of my competition, time and time again.  And to think; I don't have to treat people badly or have a high inconclusive rate to achieve this.

Having said that, when there are examiners out there like some of my competition here in DFW, if the problem is systemic, how could accurate numbers be compiled to begin with?

It seems to me, before any reliable study can even be entertained, the industry must first address the proven problem,  for which there can be no denial exists (at least here in Texas), of examiners performing tests with the motivation of padding numbers or being lazy; and performing tests outside of standards.

There is the truth.

Now everyone is angry, and I don't care any more.

Fair, Independent, and Unbiased, means just that. 

On the other ned of the spectrum, Dan, come on 100%?  Come on.... Seriously? 

Here is the plain and simple truth, that you will not like, and don't want to hear.  POLYGRAPH ISN"T GOING ANYWHERE!  It will always be here

Now to tell the truth to the industry, simply because I can and there is not much more they can do to me anymore.  In short, I stopped believing that giving a fuck is getting me anywhere.  Having said that, I am out for myself now. 

I have decided that pissing off both sides with the truth, is the best thing to keep my integrity and reputation for being unbiased, intact.  I have no friends, and have decided to embrace it and let it keep me warm like a blanket. 

Both sides are in need of some serious waking up to your own realities.  The problem is, both sides are polarized to one side or the other, not a one of you, including you Dan is willing to listen, be reasonable, and fix the things that are broken to a point where no one is really happy, but everyone, agree to disagree. 

I swear I would enter into a state of shock, if either side ever said to the other, "gee you have a point"


If we don't start policing our own, INCLUDING those who are in comfortable seats of power in the establishment, we will lose all credibility, all the public trust, and another eppa is not only a prediction, it may be a forgone conclusion.  The industry needs to step up, man up, and clean up. 

We need to start seeking out people of integrity and character, because all the PhD's in the world, don't mean a damn thing, if we don't have examiners of good character that mean more to the industry over than the entitled establishment who care more about the protection of their fiefdoms than the protection of the industry's integrity.

Integrity does not mean circling the wagons and protecting the unethical and fiefdom lords.  It means a fair and open market, where examiners compete on a level playing field.  Standards and rules are enforced.  Anticompetitive behavior is not tolerated, and those who practice in anti competitive behavior get shunned, and examiners who believe that everyone earn their own way, are embraced.

Competition breeds a better environment, for the examiner and the examinee.  Examiners should be held to our own test when necessary. 

I do not advocate the destruction of this industry.  What I do advocate is an industry where there is more accountability, transparency, responsibility, and integrity.  We should be an industry, where we set the standard of character; where we are the examples.  Because what we look like in some areas, is an industry of hypocrites.

So there it is. 

[Joe McCarthy]

Also, given that I am still the only examiner who has EVER publicly put my money where my mouth was about the test, and bet my future on it; DON'T YOU EVER QUESTION MY INTEGRITY AGAIN.

You know better.  The people you need to question are in a list of people on papers filed in 2008.  They are suck famous polygraph examiner, and trusted by the establishment, get them on the phone and put them on the spot.

You know better than to do that with me.

The only hard evidence that you have that examiners are actively scared of their own test, comes from me.  So have some fucking respect

[Dan Mangan]

I'll direct you to the 2011 metta analysis study.

The APA's own "meta-analysis"? IMHO, that's a statistical circle-jerk extraordinaire.

But let that go.

You trust the APA to tell the truth about polygraph "test" accuracy?

Joe, please get a clue.

For fifteen (15) years -- eleven (11) of them after the devastating NAS report -- the APA publicly proclaimed 98% accuracy.

There is nothing in the 2011 APA meta-analytic survey that is PCSOT specific.

Once again -- with feeling -- there is no there there.

The "test" is a crapshoot.

So tell us, Honest Joe, how accurate is a run-of-the-mill PCOST "test"?

[Joe McCarthy]

I'll direct you to the 2011 metta analysis study.

The APA's own "meta-analysis"? IMHO, that's a statistical circle-jerk extraordinaire.

But let that go.

You trust the APA to tell the truth about polygraph "test" accuracy?

Joe, please get a clue.

For fifteen (15) years -- eleven (11) of them after the devastating NAS report -- the APA publicly proclaimed 98% accuracy.

There is nothing in the 2011 APA meta-analytic survey that is PCSOT specific.

Once again -- with feeling -- there is no there there.

The "test" is a crapshoot.

So tell us, Honest Joe, how accurate is a run-of-the-mill PCOST "test"?

And I respect your somewhat valid opinion.  that is the difference between you and I Dan, I look at things though independent and unbiased eyes. 

I always had a problem with the 98% number, the same as I have a problem with your BS 100% number.

I'm more inclined to believe the 93% number (specific issue).  In either case, I trust the test enough to bet my life on it.  Tell me another polygraph examiner on the pro polygraph side that has done the same.

Also consider this, if there was a truly reliable way to "beat the test," without getting caught, and the accuracy is so low, and I am so trusting, why did every examiner involved with my case not step up, beat their tests, and then pray that I came up a false positive?  You'd think they would have the advantage, if your theory were true.

Easy way to get rid of me, which would leave you as their only opponent.  You, who has only biased numbers from the other side of the dense backing you up; the same way the APA has biased numbers backing them up.  Frankly, they only evidence there is any documented corruption in the industry, comes from me. 

If they saw a better than average chance ti be rid of me, they would have taken it.  After I disappear, ealing with your baseless accusations (with my evidence gone) is inconsequential.   

Face it Dan, you are not a threat to them, and they are not worried about you.  You don't even show up to meetings to look them in the eye.  Must be hard to see beyond all that lace huh?

[Joe McCarthy]

In fact, you had a chance to debate them last you, you backed out when you realized that a debate would be unbiased and have rules. 

You'll back out this year too

[Dan Mangan]

Joe, you dodged the question.

How accurate is a run-of-the-mill PCSOT "test"?

After you claim the accuracy, please cite the evidence.

[Bill Parks]

Hello

If we purchase an EyeDetect machine to do employee theft exams do we have get a license or be licensed under state polygraph laws.  I asked this question to a few state polygraph associations and no one ever got back to us. ]We were looking to do employee theft exams in three states. When \ you read DOL regs it only talks about polygraph! Lawyer says he cant get a response from DOL and even after sending two letters and it has been 4 months. We have spent hours researching this problem and ready to give up.

[Joe McCarthy]

If you get to Answer with BS like IMHO, well, I do too.

Besides you said that specific issue testing was 100% accurate.

I'm saying it's 93

hmmmmmmm this is a pickle isn't it?

Because fact is, NAS is 2003, meta is 2011, and both in my honey opinion are biased studies.  base on my experience I'm more inclined to go from 80 to 93, in my honest opinion. 

Personally, I would like to see a honest effort on both sides to study the issue in a manner that is independent and unbiased.  there in is the rub. 

neither side would cooperate

[Dan Mangan]

Hello

If we purchase an EyeDetect machine to do employee theft exams do we have get a license or be licensed under state polygraph laws.  I asked this question to a few state polygraph associations and no one ever got back to us. ]We were looking to do employee theft exams in three states. When  you read DOL regs it only talks about polygraph! Lawyer says he cant get a response from DOL and even after sending two letters and it has been 4 months. We have spent hours researching this problem and ready to give up.

What state are you in? Which states do you seek to "test" employees?

[Joe McCarthy]

now that I have answered your question, and I have answered it.  Are you backing out of any idea of a strictly moderated debate?

[Joe McCarthy]

Hello

If we purchase an EyeDetect machine to do employee theft exams do we have get a license or be licensed under state polygraph laws.  I asked this question to a few state polygraph associations and no one ever got back to us. ]We were looking to do employee theft exams in three states. When  you read DOL regs it only talks about polygraph! Lawyer says he cant get a response from DOL and even after sending two letters and it has been 4 months. We have spent hours researching this problem and ready to give up.

you won't get anywhere in texas, don't waste your time

[Dan Mangan]

Joe, you DODGED my question.

The APA meta-analytical survey has no PCSOT-specific data. as in NONE.

Please tell us, Honest Joe, how accurate is a run-of-the-mill PCSOT "test", then cite the evidence.

[Ex Member]

If we purchase an EyeDetect machine to do employee theft exams do we have get a license or be licensed under state polygraph laws.

I remember once in California, they outlawed "gasoline" powered leaf blowers. Gardeners simply switched to ethanol and there was nothing the government could do. My guess is that EyeDetect would not be affected by the EPPA, which is germane to employee theft investigations. Similarly I assume that state licensing verbiage stipulates "polygraph." Now I see the wisdom in an early launch.