Let me pause to scratch my head.

Wasn’t it Larry that agreed to Whitehouse.com’s non bias test given by an National recognized polygraph expert?

You know the expert that had no political ties. If I remember right it was Larry that agreed.Hmmmm.

It could be argued that if Sinclair were a liar trying to fool the polygraph, he could have readily learned and employed polygraph countermeasures. But at the end of the day, polygraph “testing” is junk science and can tell us nothing one way or the other regarding Mr. Sinclair’s truthfulness. The fact that WhiteHouse.com hired a documented fraud to administer the “test” only further muddies the waters. As things now stand, Sinclair has yet to offer any evidence to support his claims (and his having “passed” the polygraph would not have been evidence, either).

Actually Larry has been pushing for a polygraph test from the day he recorded that youtube video. The motive of that “push” now seems to be that he only wanted to “validate” his claims in the eyes of the public. The whitehouse.com polygraph opportunity just popped up and came out of nowhere. He took it because if he didn’t it would have been disasterous for his outrageous claims. Shame on Larry for lying to the American people.

Larry: I will take a lie detector test to prove what I am saying is true!

Whitehouse.com: OK and here’s some money.

Larry: Lie detectors mean nothing.

You might want to take the “news” off of your headline on your website. Printing quotes supposedly by larry sinclair from Youtube is nothing more than unethical and irresponsible journalism… but then again, you never were… so keep on keepin on with the slanderous lies!

Larry Sinclair should not go away because if there is a shred of truth to this we should know now.

The rampant homosexuality rumors about Obama were there before Sinclair appeared. blackmailing is a possibility here.

Why doesn’t someone else come forward as well? then we would know.

Right now, I’m joining from our Los Angeles bureau by forensic psychophysiologist Edward Gelb, who has administered more than 30,000 polygraph examinations.

Ed, thank you for joining us this evening.

EDWARD GELB, FORENSIC PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIST: Thanks for having me on the show, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed, over 30,000 since 1969, what are the odds I could deceive you?

GELB: Well, I would think I would be correct 95 percent of the time, so you might be correct 2-3 percent of the time, because there are faults positives and faults negatives.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of that 5 percent, is that what makes it — is that why courts don’t always admit polygraph exam results?

GELB: No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that at all, Greta. And the reason is that we allow evidence into court such as eyewitness testimony, which is about 63 percent accurate, but we don’t always allow polygraph results in, even though they may be in the 90 percentiles. I think what’s working there is we don’t want to take the place of the trier of fact. We don’t want trial by polygraph. We want trial by judge and jury.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, Ed, I know that you can’t talk about the O.J. Simpson case specifically, but that one of your associates — at least it’s in the public domain — that O.J. Simpson went to him for a polygraph test a number of years ago and that F. Lee Bailey is saying that he attempted to stop it because of O.J. Simpson’s emotional state.

Hypothetically, if someone goes in to get a polygraph examination, is a lawyer able to remotely — from a remote location stop that polygraph examination?

GELB: Absolutely not. The examination is between the person being tested and the polygraph examiner, and the results are not known by the attorney until at least two or more charts are collected, and by that point the decision has been made, deception or no deception.

VAN SUSTEREN: So once a test is started, there’s no way it can be stopped, unless a lawyer is standing right there?

GELB: That’s correct. Today, you may be watching a video and watching it in real time, and you could run out of that video room and run into the polygraph suite and say, stop this, stop this. But I don’t think that was happening when this examination supposedly took place.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we’re going to take break.

And when we come back, we will include your phone calls and e- mails. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome back.

We’re talking about lie detector tests. And my guest, in Los Angeles, is polygraph expert Edward Gelb.

We have an e-mail, Ed, from Joel and it reads as follows: “What bodily responses do polygraph tests evaluate? What parameters are used to develop a scale for determining responses?”

Ed, what’s the answer to that question?

GELB: Nice complex question. We’re monitoring blood pressure and pulse rate, the number of times your heart beats a minute and the strength with which it beats. We are looking at changes in the rate and volume of breathing, we are looking at changes in electrical conductivity, known as galvanic skin response, and we’re assigning numerical values to those parameters, and when we come to a plus 6 or above, we deem the person truthful; minus 6 or below, deception indicated.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed, how old is the polygraph exam?

GELB: How — I’m sorry?

VAN SUSTEREN: How old is it?

GELB: Oh, the examination goes back to the ancients that used a different type of lie detector, they would have a donkey in a tent and they would put some black on the donkey’s tail, they would have somebody go in there and they would tell them if the donkey brayed, they were lying. After you pulled the tail, they would — person would come out, they would see if there was any soot on the hand, and if not, they’d know the person was lying. That was a primitive type of lie detector, that goes back thousands of years.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, let’s go to the telephones now, we have a caller on the phone from the state of Pennsylvania.

Go ahead, caller.

CALLER: Yes, Greta, what I’m wondering is after hearing that Mr. Simpson agreed that he may take or consent to a polygraph test at this time on pay per view, what is the percentage of accuracy after this many years after the crime compared to what it would have been if he would have taken the test at the time of the crime?

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed, it’s been almost six years, June 12, 1994 was the murder, what about it, are the results less reliable today?

GELB: The passage of time has little if anything to do with the results of the examination. More importantly here, Mr. Simpson would have no fear of detection of deception because he’s already had his matter adjudicated in criminal court and he was found to be not guilty. So even though the polygraph might indicate deception, he would have nothing to lose by taking the test.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have another e-mail for you, Ed, this time it is from the state of Virginia, and it reads as follows: “What does an inconclusive result mean in a polygraph test? Should someone retake the test if it’s inconclusive?” That’s Virginia.

Ed, that’s what happened in the Ramsey case, Patsy Ramsey was — the first test results were inconclusive, then truthful. What does that mean?

GELB: What that means, Greta, is that there is no opinion, that’s what the government calls an inconclusive examination. I think the best, easiest analogy for everyone to understand is taking an electrocardiogram. If the doctor does not have sufficient data, he continues running charts until he has sufficient data to come to a definite conclusion. The same thing happens with a polygraph examination.

An inconclusive or no opinion means there is insufficient data to make a determination with, and you continue running charts until you get sufficient data to make a decision with, just like an electrocardiogram.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have a call from the state of Utah.

Go ahead, caller.

CALLER: What percentage of the time have examiners suspected lying and then later shown that lying was not taking place?

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed?

GELB: Well, that’s a — kind of an interesting question. The problem there really lies with ground truth. In other words, do we know what the answer is? In an academic setting, we can say that we’re 94, 95 percent accurate. In real life, because we don’t know the final answer unless a person confesses or somebody else confesses, it’s very difficult to make that assessment. But I think we can stay with at least 94 percent accurate.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed, what’s the costs of these lie detector tests in general?

GELB: Well, the prices vary. Here in Los Angeles, the courts pay $975 for a polygraph examination conducted for the court.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have an e-mail now from Vera, it reads as follows: “Do legal or illegal drugs affect the results of a lie detector test?”

GELB: Answer very simply is no, because you’re making comparisons between different types of questions and no drug selectively affects a particular type of question, so the whole test may be elevated but still with differences, or it may be suppressed but still with differences. So as long as you’re testable, drugs don’t really affect a polygraph test, not a zone comparison test.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, a call from the state of North Carolina.

Go ahead, caller.

CALLER: Yes. My question was, we have a business and we recently had a deposit stolen out of the business. We are trying to eliminate the suspicion of employees. Are we within our rights to ask them to take a lie detector test?

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed, is that a problem that employers face? Can they go ahead and just lie — and put a lie — anyone on the polygraph?

GELB: Well, not anyone, Greta. But if they do it in conformance with the Employee Polygraph Protection Act they’re in good shape, and what that means is that they have an identifiable economic injury to the company, number one; number two, they have reasonable suspicion to ask someone to take the test.

Access alone does not constitute reasonable suspicion. Then they give the person a 48-hour notice and, assuming the person voluntarily signs that 48-hour notice, the time starts to run. Weekends don’t count for the government, and at the end of that period they can, in fact, take a polygraph examination.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have an e-mail now for you from Barry: “Have there been recent advancements in polygraph technology? Is there any more accuracy in a newer, computerized polygraph system?”

GELB: I would say yes, Barry. The advent of the computer has come to the world of polygraph. We have more sensitive equipment. We have the mechanical function taken away so that there’s automatic recentering and there’s a lot that happens in a computerized polygraph that’s beneficial.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ed, in the 20 seconds we have left, do you expect more and more courts to allow polygraphs to be used in cases?

GELB: I think, Greta, when there is standardization and we find that the level of competence amongst all polygraph examiners rises to the level expected in a Dowbere (ph) hearing, then there may be more admissibility. Until then, we have to work on standardization.

VAN SUSTEREN: And when you talk about Dowbere, that’s a Supreme Court case which may have changed things for polygraph.

But that’s all the time we have for tonight. Thanks to my guest, polygraph expert Edward Gelb. And tomorrow on “BURDEN OF PROOF,” an update on the trial of two Libyan suspects in the Pan American bombing. That’s at 12:30 p.m. Eastern.

slander!

Larry Sinclair should be sued…and anyone who supported, aided, or abetted, or reported on his salacious claims.

Larry, you sleaze.

Why I believe Larry:

(1) Basically, it was not because of the people who brought the story to the public attention, it was from the people who were trying to dismiss it. They claimed, nothing to see here… just take my word for it…

(2) The first line of defense was: Larry was not a person of credible character… so what is the moral of the story here? … You can have illicit sex and drugs because anyone who claims they did illicit sex and drugs with you would not be credible because they said they did illicit sex and drugs… the old catch 22…

(3) A Clinton\Paul conspiracy was at work… oh… ok?

(4) Then another defensive rational immerged: everybody started saying; hey I had sex with so-in-so… see how easy it is? But that just proved the point, thousands and thousands of people were obviously mouthing off. But the facts around Larry Sinclair’s story had a degree of plausibility… even if you want to measure it as small.

(5) False stories began to immerge about Larry. He was in a mental institution at the time; he had a brain tumor, etc. There are even fake Washington Post documents posted claiming Larry had tried twice in the past to swindle politicians… blatant lies

(6) Notice the first 5. No defense at all of Obama. You would think it was Larry that was running for President.

(7) Obama would never do cocaine!!! Did anybody actually read his book?

(8) I looked at the video… he didn’t look crazy. I read his email transcripts; again he appears saner than those denying him.