Filed under: Sex, Scandals, Scoops, Barack Obama, Drugs, Larry Sinclair, WhiteHouse.com, Ed Gelb, Gordon Barland
NOTE: Help Big Head DC’s Investigative Team Grow!
Gordon Barland, a respected polygraph expert, has finished reviewing the Ed Gelb-produced polygraph test administered recently on Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who claims he used drugs and had a sexual encounter with Sen. Barack Obama in 1999.
Big Head DC has reviewed Barland’s report, which WhiteHouse.com originally commissioned yet failed to post, and Barland indicates there were technical flaws in procedure (including unnecessary interruptions), irregularities in the way the polygraph device was hooked up to Sinclair’s arm, and “uncommon” recording abnormalities involving Sinclair’s truthfulness about Obama’s alleged cocaine use.
While Barland’s review agrees with Gelb’s “deception” analysis of Sinclair’s sex claims, Barland’s findings regarding Sinclair’s alleged cocaine use with Obama were more murky. In fact, a computer algorithm called PolyScore found “no deception indicated” regarding Sinclair’s claim that Obama used drugs with him in the late 1990s. Ultimately, Barland said he agreed with Gelb’s analysis, despite the divergent PolyScore result.
Sinclair’s conclusion after reading the report is that he may be partially vindicated, and he says he believes the earlier “deception” result might be attributable to the poor testing conditions provided by WhiteHouse.com.
“I think the manner in which this exam was done is questionable,” Sinclair told Big Head DC upon reviewing the results on Tuesday afternoon. “I feel that knowing my medical history, Gelb intentionally prolonged the interview process that he claimed was necessary to form a list of questions, when in fact he already had the list of question printed and sitting on his desk. They knew I cannot sit, stand, walk, or lie down for extended periods of time, and I do believe this was intentional.”
Sinclair also said that “all of my treating doctors will confirm my normal blood pressure always runs on the low side as does my breathing.” Polygraph manuals note that people with medical issues like those of Sinclair can be difficult to test accurately via a lie detector.
Thank you BidHeadDC for your continuing report on the Sinlair/Parisi story.
It’s now quite obvious why WhiteHouse.com didn;t report the second analysis. The fix WAS in!
BigHeadDC - YOU’RE AWESOME! Thank you for continuing to pursue the truth! That is what we desperately need in this case.
spread the word, folks: WhiteHouse.com cover-up aided by Axelrod?
WH.com gave the results to Larry, so what cover-up is there?
I am not sure about the Axelrod involvement, but obviously, Sinclair was not treated professionally by dan parisi and whitehouse.c and the experts. And something needs to be said about this matter. I hope Sinclair at least will not be slaughtered by the Obama camp — actually, they already did this - they called Sinclair all kind of names and branded him the most disgusting human being (I read some comments from Obama supporters “begging” Sinclair to kill himself).
The results were not cut and dry “deception” — they raise questions that indicate Obama could be telling the truth. If Whithouse.com is working with the Obama camp, this is the scandal of the century. Why did WH.com not release this information????
Young, I hate to say this, but I wish you drop dead now!
Stay strong, Larry. If I was at the debate tonight, I would SCREAM YOUR NAME!!!!!!!!
So, if I am reading it right, Sinclair was not telling the whole truth about the sex claims but Obama, did in fact, use cocaine in Sinclair’s presence?
YOU FUCKING IDIOTS - READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH…HE AGREES SINCLAIR WAS LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read the details of the report — the POLYSCORE SHOWED NO DECEPTION ON COCAINE USE WITH OBAMA.
No, the whole “fly out to LA and we get you tested — there are so much more that just come to a room and we will hook you up with a machine — so I was naturally suspicious aobut the manner whitehouse.c/dan parisi handled the whole thing. But Sinclair willingly participated, and he should have been more cautious. I guess you cannot blame Sinclair too much - he was just so anxious to get his story out.
read the end of the report: “i therefore concur with mr. gelb’s conclusions that mr. sinclair showed indications of deception on both test issues.”
Barland makes it clear that a computer algorithm called PolyScore found “no deception indicated” regarding Sinclair’s claim that Obama used drugs with him in the late 1990s, but ultimately, Barland said he agreed with Gelb’s analysis, despite the divergent PolyScore result. It’s unknown at this point how much Barland was paid to ignore the PolyScore part.
Dan Parisi messed up the whole thing.
Sounds like whitehouse.com and Dan Parisi have alot of explaining to do. They didn’t carry out their end of the deal either. Now you can’t even post a comment on their site. Were they tired of hearing the truth. Until they post the video, the computer print outs and everything else related to this case, the public can only conclude that they are hiding something. What are they hiding? Who is paying them to hide the information? Sounds like a cover up to me.
American deserves to hear the truth. Come on whitehouse.com update the Sinclair story like you promised. What do you have to hide?
Give’em Hell BIGHEAD!
smells like a cover up to me
obamatruth.org
hillaryspeaksforme.com
The Stoelting Ultrascribe polygraph, is 100% accurate and reliable.
google: Stoelting Ultrascribe polygraph
Whitehouse shut it down because they did not receive the second half of the $750,000 they were offered to set this up. Also, Parisi had no choice but turn the report over to me after screaming breach of contract all day and this is the first part of our agreement he has lived up.
This is going to end up uncovering a lot more than Obama and I getting high and off 8 years ago.
Now I have a question: why did Dan Parisi get involved in the first place? I did not see any ads on their website, so the heavy traffic does not translate into profit for them, so what gives?
Are you really Larry Sinclair? I thought someone mentioned that Sinclair would give a 10 PM (EST) interview with Jeff Rense.
It is 9PM PST and 11PM CST
Thanks for the update. Mr. Sinclair, if I may, I would like to make a suggestion: it seems like you are getting into this unpleasant situation with Parisi, and it is somehow sidetracking from your original allegations. If I were you, I would focus on getting the driver (P. Multani) to validate your story, otherwise, it is unlikely that this issue will be resolved soon. And timimg is essention here - if you are proven truth in 2009, it really does not matter, at least not to me. Thanks, and take good care of yourself.
Is there a link for the interview, Larry?
* essential
jeffrense.com, I believe
Anyone notice Barland report states he review Gelb’s TWO reports dated 2-22-08 but Parisi claimed sunday night he was waiting for the TYPED reports because he only had a hand written faxed one.?
People look at the dates on Barlands report and see Parii has been lying all weekend
Big Head Rob: what can Big Head accomplish here? Thanks.
Keep going BigHeadDC!!
I think Larry Sinclair has a real good lawsuit against WHITEHOUSE.com
Dave noticed something about WHITEHOUSE.com that i also noticed. Their is no ads on the site to make money with. I think Larry Sinclair was faked by an Obama support group into taking a phony polygraph. Something is not right about WHITEHOUSE.
Analog Polygraph Systems … Stoelting’s UltraScribe AT with CLC Push Button Centering defines a new standard …
5 Recording Channels
80506 UltraScribe AT
UltraScribe AT … a polygraph whose overall integrity of design makes it superior to any other.
hey fat rat: as I mentioned to Sinclair, he needs to put all his evidence out and stop getting into these fights. I am not sure how many people out ther have the patience to let this go on and on. If he cannot get himself proven soon, he might just as well forget about the whole thing. I think there is a good chance he did not make the drug/sex story up, but to prove it is a differnt matter. We cannot just take his words for it. If his story (Omaba did use illicit drugs in 1999, plus the extramarrital sexual conduct) can’t get out in a timely matter, it is pretty much useless.
Larry, Will you confirm or deny a question I have: Do you know/met Tony Rezko?
Hey DAVE your a scum ball. I can’t wait when his wife finds out she is married to a Faggot. and the scandals OH MY. Monica Lewinsky will be like a minnow to this whale. AND IT IS TRUE
Parisi has gotten in over his head with Axelrod/Obama. Something very dirty went on behind closed doors at whitehouse, and I believe Larry was set up and baited to take that poly challenge from the begining. Larry has given proof or evidence that Axelrod/Obama paid Parisi to make that offer to Larry, but whitehouse didn’t post their phony results soon enough for Axelrod/Obama, so now Parisi will only receive half of the $750,000 that was promised to him for setting Larry up. GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL MR PARISI, MR AXELROD, AND MR OBAMA.
People I need your opinions please. I need you to look at the report from Edward Gelb the first expert for WH.coms polygraph of me. Look at the end of pageone where Gelb signs off on the report. What is the date listed there, and does that report claim that his findings had be reviewed already and and the second expert concurred? If this is so, How is it that Barland did not issue his report until 2-26-08 but Gelb said he agreed on 2-22-08?
Logan, I do not and I have not
PLEASE PEOPLE CHECK THE GELB REPORT IT STILL HAS LINKS UP AT WH.COM. I ONLY JUST NOW LOOKED AT IT. IF I AM SEEING THIS CORRECTLY IT PRVES I AM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS BEING SET UP.
Personally, I have thought this all along, Sinclair and Obama, had done the drugs together, there may have been some kind of fooling around. But, the key here, is the drugs usage.
Hey BigheadDC thanks for keeping Larry’s story in the forefront. I find it interesting that whitehouse.com has stopped all comments and refuses to live up to their end of the bargain. Larry, we believe you, keep up the good fight.
what time is your interview Larry?
By the very actions of whitehouse.com, I think their actions here are totally not creditable! They clearly, mislead their viewers and discredited the web site. Clearly some is putting pressure on them to retreat.
Larry you are right…I looked and compared both reports….WOW did you catch them good….WAY TO GO!!!!
Why isnt the other examiner named???
The Rense interview is in 20 minutes, rense.com
I had never really looked at the Gelb report until tonight. But Obama supporters will not even look at the reports other than to say they say I am lying.
The report of Gelb prooves my statment by his own words.
Allow me to say this, I have lived in Washington for 15 years. I first heard this story, last fall in the Hart Office Building, with Barrack Obama office door in clear view. I’ve heard it during social, sport and private events. In DC, as many are aware, gossip flows freely, but here it has a short self life, if not some element of truthfulness. This story seems to be growing, becoming more interesting by the day. Therefore, I must conclude, this is more than rumors.
Larry, You need to block some of the childish people on your youtube. They are crazy!!!! Block them!!!!! Who cares if they believe you…………..you don’t need them. Block them!!!!
Dr. Gordon Barland is a widely respected expert if Polygraph.
Edward Gelb is a not creditable.
We want the truth: I agree with you. Larry, they those kids make your claims look poorly, by adding stupidity to the issue. Therefore, giving your claims less value.
Hi Michael:
So what do you think Sinclair should do? He seems to be going nowhere, and in the meantime, he is taking a bad beating — his reputation etc etc.
and I’M A SUPPORTER. THE ITEM AT THE END OF THE GELB THING REFERS TO SOMEONE WITHIN HIS OFFICE CHECKINGHIS RESULTS. NOT BARLAND. IT MEANS SOMEONE WHO WORKS FOR GELB CHECKED IT. COMMON PRACTICE. DON’T WANT YOU GETTING CALLED OUT ON THAT.
Dave your make an excellent point. But, it’s worth nothing, Dan Parisi came out, blazing. Sounds like to me, someone hosed him. Side note, Bill Clinton tried to shut down whitehouse.com, when he was president. So, there is bad blood with the Clinton’s and Dan Parisi.
Look at the end of pageone where Gelb signs off on the report. What is the date listed there, and does that report claim that his findings had be reviewed already and and the second expert concurred? If this is so, How is it that Barland did not issue his report until 2-26-08 but Gelb said he agreed on 2-22-08?
-You got them, Larry!!!
Dated Feb. 22, 2008
“The polygrams were “blind scored” by another expert examiner who independently corroborated the findings of the primary examiner.”
Signed by Edward Gelb
Guys, let’s stay focused. The thing at the end of the Gelb report refers to an “in house” examiner - not Barland. Common practice.
Hey I couldnt find where Rense was talking to Larry??? Did I miss it???
I’m listening to it right now.
I’m confused. If Whitehouse.com GAVE Larry the results why is it a “Cover-up”? That seems illogical to me.
Also from the reports, if I’m reading it correctly, That the issues with the dates just seems to me as if the date of the actual test is only listed on Gelb’s report. However I don’t see an exact date except for the posting date of whitehouse.com that Gelb’s typed report actually took place. And it seems as if Whitehouse.Com were waiting for the typed report after the 22nd. So it is possible that the second expert looked at the findings of Gelb after the 22nd, made his own conclusion based on that evidence and then later on typed up a detailed report (the 26th) However this report was written on the 26th, hence the date. I find nothing odd about that. On documents such as these you include the date you physically typed the report.
Also, I trust if the second expert concluded with Gelb’s initial findings following what seems to be rules of conduct in regards to the human score vs Polyscore.
I suggest Larry take another polygraph or produce further evidence. His word isn’t going to be good enough to derail the entire career and family life of a politician running for president. We need to see the receipts. We need the limo driver who was Obama’s friend that introduced them, we the name of the lounge you met at. Something. Without further evidence its not going to fly.
I support Obama, but I also feel as if Larry is lying he must be getting paid a ton of money from someone to do it or he is completely delusional. Otherwise I don’t see someone continue with this type of lie. If he is telling the truth he needs to get proof and get it asap or this whole thing is going to vanish.
I believe Larry snorted dope with someone and blew someone but not sure it was Obama.
Not true: Sinclair is being interviewed by Jeff Rense now, and I am afraid he might not be aware of the fact you pointed out.
Also, I trust if the second expert concluded with Gelb’s initial findings following what seems to be rules of conduct in regards to the human score vs Polyscore-
than he must agree with Gelb’s report.
Tune ito rense.com network 3
into even
I just researched the standard policies of polygraph testing. It says that the examiner independently interprets the chart and renders the decision. Nothing was listed about having the results looked at by an “in house” examiner.
9. The examiner shall independently interpret the chart tracings and render an opinion on findings that includes, but is not limited to, one of the following conclusions:
a. No Deception Indicated
b. Deception Indicated
c. Inconclusive
10. The polygraph examiner shall determine if a second polygraph examination is necessary and appropriate.
well said, Chu.
Larry is doing a great job on Rense…go Larry go
Well done Researched….something smells fishy to me
Big Head DC’s write up is quite misleadning. They said “Barland’s findings regarding Sinclair’s alleged cocaine use with Obama were more murky. In fact, a computer algorithm called PolyScore found “no deception indicated” regarding Sinclair’s claim that Obama used drugs with him in the late 1990s”. What they failed to point out is what Gordon Barland went on to say which was “The DACA guidelines indicate that when there is a conflict between the examiner’s score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence. I therefore concur with Mr. Gelb’s conclusions that Mr. Sinclair showed indications of deception on BOTH test issues.
In addition, Barland scored Sinclair even lower on the first issue (-17 compared to Gelb’s -15).
Sinclair was somehow implying that the results were rigged but the second experts opinion unequivocally shoots that theory down.
While you were all here jerking in a circle, Obama cleaned Hillary’s clock in the Debate. He’ll be the nominee and all you Obama-bashers have is two failed lie detector tests, two lie detector experts saying Larry was deceptive, and Larry yelling about cover-ups and pay-offs and conspiracies.
Keep on truckin’
EXCEPT Anon….The original Gelb report states an “in house” examiner concurred…yet the other report didnt come out until today…something is fishy….
It is not believable to think that Obama has had only one homosexual experience in his life. There would have to be many other examples of his gay activities. Why hasn’t any one else surfaced?
Why hasn’t anyone else surfaced regarding smoking crack as an adult?
Larry may be telling the truth, but without more people confirming these activities from personal knowledge, this will go nowhere.
What the hell is the limo driver waiting for?
This is fun to read about, but this is all a dead end, LD test or no.
Heather, that is because “in house” examiner is someone in Gelb’s office who reviews it for quality control. The Barland review would be considered “out of house”.
“when there is a conflict between the examiner’s score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence.”
Why even bother with Polyscore, if it is always ignored when there is a conflict? That seems dumb.
I’m glad you researched that, but I’m only reporting to you what I know to be the case having worked in the office of one of these two experts. I won’t say which. It is common for an in house fellow expert to verify decisions. That’s what was done here. It’s a shitty point to make because it’s wrong. And, for the record, I support Larry.
Russell: Would you like an extra pillow? Because, “bitch is the new black!”
That is because the other report is OUT OF HOUSE.
why doesnt the in-house expert have to sign the report then??
And why does human scoring take presedence over computer scoring??? Arent computers more exact??
Adam: Ok - I’ll conceed the point - I denounce and reject a new pillow.