Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

[Paradiddle]

Thank you Mystery Meat, and just in time for the spooky season----the season of smoke, illusions, and spectres---a fitting tribute indeed Mystery!

George, what have you to say about your gross misrepresentation of Drew Richardson before the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee? George, could you please explain truthfully, why you would falsly elevate Drewie's stature ---in effect , lie to the U.S. Senate, a high crime punishable of up to 20 years in a federal prison---when you referrred to Drewie as being the "top polygraph expert" with this nation's top law enforcement organization, the FBI? Have you no shame sir, have you no shame?

[Mysterymeat]

George,

Ring in here any time. I took the info right out of your "Too Hot of a Potato" stuff. Right now, you are looking more like a "Luke Warm Vegetable".


Best,

MM

[Sergeant1107]

I'm confused.

Is your issue with how George represented Dr. Richardson's credentials?  Or with how Dr. Richardson represented his own credentials?

If you believe Dr. Richardson misrepresented his qualifications to everyone, how can you single out George for repeating those qualifications?

And if you believe now that Dr. Richardson did not, in fact, misrepresent his qualifications but that George did, wouldn't an apology to Dr. Richardson be the proper course of action?

Or are you simply trolling?

[George W. Maschke]

Good golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.

Paradiddle,

You have "documented" precisely nothing regarding Dr. Richardson's "track record" at DoDPI/DACA. And again, you've made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials. Your resort to the childish rhetorical technique of name-calling ("Drewie") does not strengthen your arguments but instead merely bespeaks a lack of emotional maturity on your part. That you engage in such name-calling from behind a veil of anonymity suggests that you might be (quite rightly) embarrassed to make such statements using your real name.

George,

In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:

"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"

Where did you get your facts from George?

Regards,

MM

Mysterymeat,

In my statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top expert in polygraphy on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the relevant science (or lack thereof) involved. Senator Charles Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed a similar view in a 1997 letter to then FBI Laboratory Division Director Donald Kerr, in which he wrote, "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs."

[Paradiddle]

Good golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.

Paradiddle,

You have "documented" precisely nothing regarding Dr. Richardson's "track record" at DoDPI/DACA. And again, you've made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials. Your resort to the childish rhetorical technique of name-calling ("Drewie") does not strengthen your arguments but instead merely bespeaks a lack of emotional maturity on your part. That you engage in such name-calling from behind a veil of anonymity suggests that you might be (quite rightly) embarrassed to make such statements using your real name.

George,

In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:

"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"

Where did you get your facts from George?

Regards,

MM

Mysterymeat,

In my statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top expert in polygraphy on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the relevant science (or lack thereof) involved. Senator Charles Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed a similar view in a 1997 letter to then FBI Laboratory Division Director Donald Kerr, in which he wrote, "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs."

So, instead of admitting that you mischaracterized Drewie's "eminence", you are now indicating that you were only parrotting what you heard----from Donald Kerr? from what division? Which Laboratory division? It seems that you cling to the notion that Mr. Richardson is the only PHD from DODPI or the FBI regarding polygraph, and that you elected him to the office of "top Polygraph expert"---which the sworn document states otherwise when it indicates that Drewie had no real understanding of polygraph even after graduating from DODPI.

As far as identity, what the blazes does that have to do with anything? This site contains plenty of anonymous posters who have gladdly critisized, called to task---and yes, even questioned the integrity of polygraph examiners everywhere. We have endured all sorts of character assinations for how many years now? Then, when a lone and powerlessly obscure examiner such as myself, points to the fact that Mr. Drew Richardson has been accused in a written statement, who's writer has sworn to a Triar of Fact, that Drew was a poor student, a disasterous examiner---the worst ever seen by one account----and furthermore, contrast that with the elevated claims by yourself and others that he is a Superior expert on polygraph. Who cares who I am, or any other anonymous poster here (pro or anti alike) for that matter. Have you lost it?

[Mysterymeat]

Well George, that settles it. If a Senator referred to Dr. Richardson as an "expert" he must be one!

Thanks for that clarification.

MM

[Paradiddle]

Good golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.

Paradiddle,

You have "documented" precisely nothing regarding Dr. Richardson's "track record" at DoDPI/DACA. And again, you've made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials. Your resort to the childish rhetorical technique of name-calling ("Drewie") does not strengthen your arguments but instead merely bespeaks a lack of emotional maturity on your part. That you engage in such name-calling from behind a veil of anonymity suggests that you might be (quite rightly) embarrassed to make such statements using your real name.

George,

In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:

"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"

Where did you get your facts from George?

Regards,

MM

Mysterymeat,

In my statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top expert in polygraphy on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the relevant science (or lack thereof) involved. Senator Charles Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed a similar view in a 1997 letter to then FBI Laboratory Division Director Donald Kerr, in which he wrote, "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs."

On what credentials do you base your psychoanalytical remarks upon? As an expert on Near East studies, what entitles you to use terms such as emotional maturity, a term that denotes an understanding of emotional stages of development. Have you now designated yourself as an expert in the field of human behavior---along with polygraph science/art/ and subsequent "expert accreditation" of superior expertise? My hyperbole aside, George would do well to reserve the accredititing of expertise to the acedemic bodies that do the educating, not beaurocrats and fanboys who have an axe to grind.

[Mysterymeat]

*Internation Journal of Psychphysiology*, 1993, *15*,263-7

"The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma:Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers". John J. Furedy, University of Toranto.

Achnowledgements: This paper was originally written with Dr. Drew C. Richardson, A Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). member of the Society for the Psychophysiological Research, a graduate of the Department of Defence(sic) Polygraph Institute's Basic Polygraph Examiner Course, AND FORMERLY A PRACTITIONER OF THE CQT IN BOTH SIMULATED AND FIELD-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

The deeper you look, the deeper it gets.

MM

[Paradiddle]

Lovely, what next---Drew claims to have polygraphed the Gambino family?

[Wonder_Woman]

If Drew is an EXPERT in polygraphs how come he doesn't mention this in his bio?

http://www.brainwavescience.com/Drewbio.php


If I was the FBI TOP DOG POLYGRAPH EXPERT, I would sure list it in my bio.....

[G Scalabr]

Mr. Drew Richardson has been accused in a written statement, who's writer has sworn to a Triar of Fact, that Drew was a poor student

The guy has a real Ph.D in Physiology from George Washington University. Not only a real Ph.D (I know that these are a rarity when discussing polygraph jockeys), but a hard science one.

Undergrad, he was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC Chapel Hill as a chemistry major.

Only someone who has never seen an undergrad organic chemistry textbook would make a post like that. And O-Chem is essentially a foothill compared to the mountains of a physiology Ph. D.

It's one thing to try to assert that lack of years of field experience examiner somehow undermines an educated person's ability to render a scientific opinion with regard to polygraphy (logic simply doesn't hold there).

On the other hand, when you feature a lone polygraph examiner's opinion that the former chief of chem/bio at FBI (who is also a Phi Beta Kappa with a Ph.D in a hard science) is a poor student as a central tenet of your attempt to discredit the guy--let's just say that your argument is a total joke.

[Mysterymeat]

Gino,

Glad to see ya back. In college, I was I Felta Thi as well as I Tapta Keg- neither of which makes me an "Expert" in didily squat. I don't think that anyone on this site denies Dr. Richardson's education or intelligence. He is a very smart man. We are still all waiting to see just what it is, or was, that made him the FBI's Top Polygraph Expert that you claim he is.

Regards,

MM

[Mysterymeat]

George,

You forgot to list "Black-Bird-Ops". I think he also had some stuff to say about Vipre. Have you given any thought to your own personal liability for hosting a web site that allows people to post this kind of garbage?  Sleep well my friend.

Regards,

MM

[Paradiddle]

Mr. Drew Richardson has been accused in a written statement, who's writer has sworn to a Triar of Fact, that Drew was a poor student

The guy has a real Ph.D in Physiology from George Washington University. Not only a real Ph.D (I know that these are a rarity when discussing polygraph jockeys), but a hard science one.

Undergrad, he was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC Chapel Hill as a chemistry major.

Only someone who has never seen an undergrad organic chemistry textbook would make a post like that. And O-Chem is essentially a foothill compared to the mountains of a physiology Ph. D.

It's one thing to try to assert that lack of years of field experience examiner somehow undermines an educated person's ability to render a scientific opinion with regard to polygraphy (logic simply doesn't hold there).

On the other hand, when you feature a lone polygraph examiner's opinion that the former chief of chem/bio at FBI (who is also a Phi Beta Kappa with a Ph.D in a hard science) is a poor student as a central tenet of your attempt to discredit the guy--let's just say that your argument is a total joke.

Wow! You write with passion Gino. Your statement regarding Drew's PHD was almost songlike in it's praise----and also your ad hom attack fans out your barbing skills. Your bluster only strengthens the point that Drew was in no way the "FBI's top expert on polygraph" per the description of a senior examiner who was charged with auditing his work. Furthermore, Drew has never to my knowledge been the "Chief" of chem/bio labs---but that he has been in management. Even if true, what the hell does that have to do with Drew and the help of this site representing Drew as this eminent polygraph expert, despite being accused in a sworn declaration as having the worst grasp on the behavioral/pychological, and chart evaluation aspects of polygraph testing ever witnessed by a senior agent examiner. All of your cheerleading doesn't negate the fact that Drew allegedly demonstrated to Mark Johnson that although Drew was seemingly intelligent, he described a type of inexplicable disconnection with the bare minimum understanding of polygraph testing-----which is to say the least, not quite "top expert" material as reported by Mr. Johnson. I loathe phony degrees as much as the next honest person. But I loathe even more the deifying  sheepskin worship which doesn't in and of itself mean anything until you punch the clock.

[J.B. McCloughan]

While I refuse to engage in the discussion of Drew Richardson's credentials, as I see it as adding no real substance to the debate either for or against his assertions (or anyone else's for that matter), I do see it fit to add this tidbit of information regarding "Hard" vs. "Soft" science, as seen in the quote below.

Although I find it much healthier to debate on the real issues, the likes of these diatribes to George's vehement argumentum ad personam on a number of pro-polygraph individuals seems quite homogeneous.  And still, I find neither of these to be productive matters past those reminiscent of the juvenile practices on an elementary playground.  But, what would a soft scientist know of these matters anyway?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science

Hard science is a term used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences or physical sciences that are perceived to be more accurate than other sciences like the social sciences. The hard sciences usually rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity.

One distinction is drawn also between Western Science and native science. This shows how a worldview determines which kind of science is practiced by the people within this framework.

The hard versus soft distinction is controversial in some circles. Although associated with notions of scientific realism, this distinction is drawn more from commonsense than a deep immersion in the philosophy of science. Much work by modern historians of science, starting with the work done by Thomas Kuhn, has focused on the ways in which the "hard sciences" have functioned in ways which were less "hard" than previously assumed, emphasizing that decisions over the veracity of a given theory owed much more to "subjective" influences than the "hard" label would emphasize (and begin to question whether there are any real distinctions between "hard" and "soft" science). Some, such as those who subscribe to the "strong program" of the sociology of scientific knowledge, would go even further, and remove the barrier between "hard science" and "nonscience" completely.

Despite these objections, hard versus soft distinction is popular and widely used. One perceived difference supporting the distinction is the degree to which conclusions in different fields are controversial within those fields. Some believe that conclusions from physics or chemistry tend to be less controversial among physicists and chemists, versus how much of political science is controversial among political scientists. However, in most physical sciences there has been extensive debate about issues like whether atoms exist and whether randomness is inherent in subatomic particles. Russ Roberts from George Mason University claims that although many people romanticize about the objectivity of the so-called hard scientists, many physical scientists constantly engage in controversies and arguments[1].

There is much difficulty distinguishing between soft and hard sciences because many social sciences like economics use the scientific process to formulate hypotheses and test them using empirical data, i.e. econometrics. Furthermore, many social scientists engage in experimental work within the field of experimental economics. In most cases the methodology used by practitioners of the so-called soft scientist are the same as those used by practitioners of the hard sciences and the only difference is the object studied. Physical scientists tend to look at atoms, energy, waves, etc while social scientists tend to look at societies, individuals, firms, etc.

In all experimental or empirical sciences there is a need to set up experiments. One necessary feature of experiments is the need to control for all factors. It may be hard to control for all factors in an experiment because the experimenter may not account for all factors. This problem exists in the social sciences and the physical sciences. To establish causation the experimenter needs to have a control group where only one variable, the variable of interest, is changed, and all other variables held constant. The difficulty is in how to control for all other variables when there could potentially be infinite variables.

The graphism thesis maintains that hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than soft sciences such as sociology.