We again remind those who have followed this series: in order for you to get a clear understanding of Why Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012 you need to know what has taken place in and since 2008. It is with this reminder we link to Parts I & II of III for your review.
Why Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012 Part I of III
Why Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012 Part II of III
We want to begin Part III of III where we left off on Part II of III, a quote from the infamous Sheila Bryant (left) (more commonly known as LegalLady; Kstreet67; kStreet 607; etc, etc…) who has demonstrated how she and her associates “repeat their “story” over and over again and of course, true to Goebbels’ word, more and more people started believing the story.”
Here is the real discrepancy. Sinclair was administered a polygraph test by two different polygraph experts. For obvious reasons, Sinclair and his minions have successfully overshadowed the results of the polygraph tests by not mentioning them at all. They repeat the “story” over and over again and of course, true to Goebbels’ word, more and more people started believing the story.
The above quote taken from Ms. Bryant’s wordpress blog post of January 4, 2012, is important. You see the Obama camp in 2008 went all out before the (one & only) polygraph of Sinclair setting the groud work for why the results would be proof of nothing, which it turns out the Obama faithful were correct in saying polygraphs can’t be trusted. Though we would like to look at it as the Polygraph examiner can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
Yet Bryant and the Obama media continues in 2012 to repeat the same LIES and misrepresentations that have been published on the Internet and used to attack every single media outlet or radio & television personality that has ever shown interest in interviewing Larry.
So lets set the record straight real quick & easy.
On February 22, 2008 Larry Sinclair was administered a polygraph exam by ONE and ONLY ONE individual by the name of Edward Ira Gelb in Los Angeles, CA. Now Bryant as well as others attempts to claim “Two different polygraph experts administered exams to Larry…” is an out right falsehood. But yet Bryant and others including the Obama media, continue even as recently as Jan 4, 2012 to repeat these known lies.
Ms. Bryant says “For obvious reasons, Sinclair and his minions have successfully overshadowed the results of the polygraph tests by not mentioning them at all.” Bryant is not being truthful, but then again there is a lot that Bryant has lied about over the last four plus years.
Larry as well as his various websites have mentioned the Polygraph exams often. In fact the video in Part I of III was uploaded and published by Larry Sinclair as soon as it was filed as an exhibit in Parisi v Sinclair in August 2011. The video supports the claims made by Larry since 2008 the polygraph was nothing more than another Edward Gelb “polygraph for hire.” We have included the so-called “Reports” of the Sinclair polygraph as released by Edward Gelb as well as Dr. Gordon Barland. The fact that Gelb has been PROVEN to be a liar in the video below or the fact that Dr. Barland was never provided with ALL the facts, data and videos will never be mentioned or reported by those who wish to use the whitehouse.com polygraph to dismiss Sinclair’s allegations.
What Bryant and others do not ever mention is anything about what is detailed below: Click HERE to download complete Maschke report; HERE for Edward Ira Gelb Report; and HERE for Dr. Barland Report.
Conduct of the Examination
The conduct of the first two iterations of the first question series is largely routine. However, Gelb, having asked the first question of the third iteration, interrupts the series and makes the following admonishment (at 1:56:04 of the first DVD):
You’re having a little difficulty in an area of the test, Larry. If you still have difficulty with the same area, I’ll discuss it with you at the end of the test. Remember, all of the questions must have been answered a hundred percent truthfully. No room for any error. Here we go.
Such interruption of a question series is unorthodox and could have made Sinclair’s failing of the series more likely, to the extent that it may have sensitized him to the relevant questions by leading him to believe that he was in danger of failing the test.
Chart Scoring
Following the conclusion of all three iterations of the first question series, Sinclair is instructed to leave the room, and Gelb scores the charts with a colleague (beginning at about 00:55 of the second DVD). Gelb’s partner states the score to be “-11 overall.” Gelb smiles and seems to concur. However, in his written report (Attachment 1), Gelb states that “Sinclair’s polygrams resulted in an evaluation of ‘deception indicated’ with a score of -15 when he answered the relevant questions. It is not clear what accounts for the discrepancy between the score documented on the video and the scored indicated in Gelb’s written report. Gordon Barland scored the same chart as “-17 (Deception Indicated).” (See Attachment 3).
At 05:25 of the second DVD, with Sinclair still out of the room, Gelb opines to the videographer who had asked whether Sinclair’s reactions may have stemmed from the consequences of his story being true (in essence, whether a false positive—a truthful person wrongly failing—may have occurred), “No, he’s just lying to the… He just made up that situation. Bullshit.”
At 05:58 of the second DVD, upon being informed by the videographer that Sinclair had filed a federal lawsuit, Gelb opines, “He’s nuts!”
At 06:58 of the second DVD, Gelb states, “Now here’s another scoring we didn’t look at. I’m just going to see what this one says. This one says he’s truthful” (emphasis added). Gelb included no mention of this scoring, which contradicts his (and Barland’s) manual scoring, in his report. However, in a report of his polygraph examination six months earlier of former prostitute Wendy Ellis regarding an alleged sexual relationship with United States Senator David Vitter of Louisiana (see Attachment 4), Gelb cites “an algorithm developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University. This algorithm has been validated by the National Security Agency and is presently being utilized by the United States Department of Defense.” It is perhaps to this algorithm (called “PolyScore”) that Gelb refers when stating regarding Sinclair’s charts, “Now here’s another scoring we didn’t look at… This one says he’s truthful.”
Mr. Gelb is best positioned to explain why he included PolyScore data in his report of Wendy Ellis’s polygraph examination but excluded it from his report of Larry Sinclair’s.
American Polygraph Association Code of Ethics
The American Polygraph Association’s code of ethics (Attachment 5) requires at Section 4.3 (“Post-Examination Notification of Results”) that:
4.3.1 A member shall afford each examinee a reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings. There are three exceptions:
4.3.1.1 When the examinee is represented by an attorney who requests that no post-examination interview be conducted, and that the results of the examination be released only to the attorney.
4.3.1.2 When the examination is being conducted by court order which stipulates that no post-examination interview is to be conducted.
4.3.1.3 Instances of operational necessity.
None of these exceptions apply in connection with Gelb’s examination of Sinclair, and Gelb—a past president of the American Polygraph Association—provided Sinclair no “post-examination notification of results” nor did he give him any “reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings.” Instead, with Sinclair still out of the room, Gelb turned to the videographer (at 07:59 of the second DVD) and asked, “Now when are you going to give this guy the results?”
Examiner Bias
Gelb’s conviction by the end of the first series that Sinclair’s allegations were “bullshit” can reasonably be expected to have introduced strong examiner bias into the conduct of the second question series:
Series Two (Drug Allegations)
1. Are you sitting down? (irrelevant)
2. Do you plan to tell the truth on this test about whether Obama smoked a rock of cocaine in your presence in that limo in 1999? (sacrifice relevant)
3. Are you convinced I won’t ask you an unreviewed question? (outside issue)
4. Unrelated to this matter, did you ever lie to make yourself important or for personal gain? (control)
5. Did Obama smoke a rock of cocaine in your presence in that limo in 1999? (relevant)
6. Have you ever been the kind of person that would try to manipulate someone else for personal gain? (control)
7. Did you lie when you said you saw Obama smoke a rock of cocaine in that limo in 1999? (relevant)
8. Is there something secret in your background that would damage your credibility if it were known? (control)
9. Is there something else you are afraid I’ll ask you a question about even though I told you I would not? (outside issue)
Chart Scoring
After three repetitions of the question series, Gelb (at roughly 46:30 to 51:10 of the second DVD) appears to silently score the charts without the participation of the colleague with whom he conferred when scoring the first series. Again, Gelb does not inform Sinclair of the results or afford him any “reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings.”
Gelb reported a score of -15 (Deception Indicated) for the second series in his report (Attachment 2). Gordon Barland arrived at a score of -7 (also Deception Indicated) for the same chart series (Attachment 3). As with the first series, Gelb did not mention PolyScore’s scoring of the charts in his report. However, Barland ran the PolyScore algorithm on the second series data, noting that “[i]t evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from 00 to 1.00.” That is, PolyScore found Sinclair to be truthful with regard to the drug questions, with a less than 1% probability of deception.
Barland does not account for this discrepancy in his report, merely stating:
This was inconsistent with my analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DACA [Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, the federal government’s polygraph school, which has since been re-named the National Center for Credibility Assessment] guidelines, indicate that when there is a conflict between the examiner’s or reviewer’s score and PolyScore, the human score takes precedence.
However, there is no a priori reason why the examiner’s or reviewer’s score should take precedence over the score rendered by PolyScore, which is not susceptible to human biases (such as might result from a belief that the claims made by the examinee are “bullshit” or that the examinee “is nuts”.
Conclusion
While polygraphy is inherently unscientific and unreliable, irregularities associated with Edward I. Gelb’s polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair render the results even more untrustworthy.
Much has been said about Dr. Gordon Barland and his “findings” of Larry’s polygraph. In Federal Court Whitehouse.com and Dan Parisi claim Gordon Barland conducted a “Blind Study” of Gelb’s exam of Larry and then changed it to claim Barland was hired to conduct a quality control review. Dr. Barland was contacted in September 2011 after the August 2011 filing of a polygraph video of Sinclair’s polygraph; and Dr. Barland stated “I do not conduct “Blind studies” and I informed Ed Gelb when he contacted me that “I do not conduct blind studies.” I explained to Ed Gelb I want to know as much as I can about the individual who is taking the polygraph and as much about the allegations as possible,” Barland said. Dr Barland also stated he had no knowledge of Ed Gelb having any “Polyscores” showing Larry was being truthful and he did not have the digital data to conduct any polyscore other than the one he had run from the data he had been provided.
From: Gordon Barland
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 7:59 AM
To: ‘Larry’
Subject: RE: Feb 2008 Sinclair PolygraphLarry,
Thanks for the background information. To the best of my recollection, I was not aware that Ed Gelb had one score showing you as truthful on the sex allegation. I don’t recall seeing any PolyScore results other than my own of the one series for which I had the digital data.
Gordon
Gordon H. Barland, Ph.D. 2162 East 6595 South Salt Lake City, UT 84121
In addition Dr. Barland explained something that no one (except Dr. Maschke), not even whitehouse.com bothered to report which Dr. Barland says as a personal choice, he does not accept the computer Polyscores (not because it is the “established practice,” because its not). In fact Polyscores in a polygraph are considered more reliable than the scores given by the human examiners, especially examiners who are biased from the start. Dr. Barland was at his request provided copies of Dr. George Maschke’s detailed report and opinion on the polygraph video and the original Gelb & Barland reports.
We believe the proof that the repeated claims of mulitple experts administering multiple polygraph exams of Sinclair has clearly been shown for what it is. FALSE. When Dr. Barland was asked if he had seen in the video provided to him by Gelb and whitehouse.com, Gelb’s comments that Sinclair “is nuts” or that his claims are “bullshit?” Barland stated he had not seen any video of the first part of the polygraph. Barland was not provided any video from the first part of the polygraph as he noted in his own report.
The polygraph however is/was only part of the media and Obama social media efforts to make Sinclair out to be something he is not. Even today January 21, 2012 more than four years after first going public with his allegations, the Obama faithful bloggers continue to make fools of themselves by republishing completely false information posted on the internet. For example, Bryant continues to publish and spam links to claims that Larry filed a false insurance claim in the State of Maryland in 2007. Despite the fact that Bryant and others have been proven to be liars, they don’t want to tell you that.
In 2007 Larry’s car was parked at Christiana Mall between Wilmington & Newark Delaware when his vehicle was hit while parked in the parking lot. The damage was a dent in the rear passenger side bumper/quarter panel and some paint transfer.
The incident was reported and the damage was reported and reviewed by a Geico adjuster. The adjuster personally inspected the damage and Geico paid the amount they figured to be the cost to repair it. Before the repairs could be made the car was stolen in New Castle Delaware and the theft was reported to the Delaware Police and to Gieco. The fact that any of Larry’s insurance information and records were even accessed by these people and misrepresented in efforts to smear him is at the least unethical and the most illegal. But the law does not apply when one is protecting Barack Obama from himself.
The New Hampshire Herald said it best in its December 20 2011 to January 5, 2012 Edition.
This story is very important and timely because a few weeks ago, a number of women made unsubstantiated harassment allegations against Herman Cain. The media ran with the stories even when it was increasingly becoming very evident that the allegations had no legs. The uproar caused some character assassination for Cain and ultimately halted his campaign for president.
Right now, the same media wants the public to believe that Newt Gingrich is not good material for the Presidency because of his past infidelities. If this argument is good for Cain and Newt, why isn’t the media holding President Obama to the same standard by demanding that he defends the allegations of drug deals and infidelity being levied against him by Larry Sinclair?
When Obama ran for president, Sinclair says the candidate’s surrogates successfully stifled discussion on the subject. It is our hope in printing this interview that it will spur on that discussion, if not at the national level, at least here in the Granite State. After all, the Granite State makes up an integral part of the electorate.
It is important that the Obama campaign comes out and tells the American people what is known or unknown about the allegations that Larry Sinclair has made against Obama for all intents and purposes.
We are not by any means attempting to suggest here that what Larry Sinclair has told us is the gospel truth. We’re not in a place to make that judgment. As you read the interview and make your own research, it is incumbent upon you to arrive at your own conclusions. That’s why we chose a Q&A format for the story.
The New Hampshire Herald did not anticipate the attacks they received in reporting a news story that dared portray anything negative about Barack Obama. The General Motors dealership pulling their advertising from the paper within 2 days of the paper hitting the news stands. That was only the beginning, the News Paper had all its advertisers contacted, threatened and pressured to pull their ads from the paper. These calls threatening and intimidating business owners has been the norm since Obama began his campaign.
As ABC News made crystal clear Thursday January 19, 2012 when they reported and aired an interview with Marianne Gingrich in the news networks continued efforts to destroy GOP Candidate Newt Gingrich; “character” is an issue in this election. Well character should be an issue for both GOP and Democratic candidates. Marianne Gingrich was used by ABC News to attack Newt Gingrich yet again. Marianne Gingrich it should be noted has for several years used the media to warn “I could end his political career with one Television interview.” While Brian Ross did mention Marianne Gingrich being accused of trying to sell influence over her then Speaker husband for $10 Million dollars, he chose to let Marianne off by simply saying “that was all made up and fabricated,” that ”was a convicted felon…..” to make it look as if Marianne Gingrich was somehow the victim of a smear campaign when in fact she was attempting to sell congressional influence. But ABC needs Marianne to conduct its attacks on Newt so Marianne gets a pass. It should also be noted that Marianne Gingrich was sleeping with Newt Gingrich when he was married to his first wife Jackie, Marianne knew she was the “other” woman then so how she would ever think she was entitled to any more respect than she gave Jackie Gingrich we have no idea.
ABC News has set the stage for confronting Barack Obama on the public allegations made by Larry Sinclair against him since January 17, 2008. It is somewhat ironic that ABC News has used an allegation from Marianne Gingrich which allegedlly took place in 1999, the same year of Sinclair’s drug and gay sex encounters in Chicago.
Barack Obama has been protected by the media from having to respond to factual allegations made against him. Despite the passage of four plus years since Sinclair made his allegations publicly; and despite the amount of money, time & energy devoted to attacking Sinclair; no one has been able to discredit Sinclair’s allegations. Instead the American taxpayer has paid the bill of the non-stop investigations implemented by the Social Security Administration over the past four years, the Internal Revenue Service, the cost of multiple Law enforcement agencies who had had to devote time and resources to the repeated filing of false reports by individuals in efforts to have Sinclair arrested.
Barack Obama does not have the moral character to hold the office of President of the United States and Barack Obama should be required to respond to public allegations made against him just as he and the Democrats use the media to ask of GOP Candidates. The Larry Sinclair Story matters in 2012 because despite every possible effort to discredit Sinclair for four plus years, those efforts have failed.
The Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012 because America has the right to know the truth and Barack Obama is no better than any other candidate and must be held to the same standard.
The American people have the right to demand Barack Obama be questioned openly and publicly as to Sinclair’s allegations of cocaine use and sexuals encounters involving Obama. The American people have the right to question Barack Obama openly and publicly as to his relationship with Donald Young. Barack Obama owes the American people public and direct responses to Sinclair’s allegations and the media owes the American people fair and unbiased reporting of the allegations.
[...] story matters in 2012, Part I of III Why Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012 Part II of III Why Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012 Part III of III April 30th, 2012 | Tags: Donald Young, Larry Sinclair, Obama | Category: Donald Young, Larry [...]
Its articles like this that makes the Larry Sinclair story matter even more in 2012. Sadly people such as Mr. White have a habit of continuing to repeat stories that if they had taken 10 seconds to check they would have found them to be false.
http://rainbowcamouflage.com/2011/12/22/640-wgst-…
While we Thank Mr. White for his service to our country, we find him to lack honesty in his internet postings and call him out for his and the LGBTQ Nation knowing publishing untrue stories in their efforts to protect Barack Obama.
Not only did Mr. White's article publish completely false claims he wrote the article attacking some radio station that he falsely claims had recently interviewed Mr. Sinclair.
Its people like Mr. White and groups like LGBTQNation that make Larry's story matter in 2012.
Interesting information. Here is my take on a couple of related issues. http://barryb911.blogspot.com/2011/06/obamas-birt…
Great series of articles, Larry!
Your efforts from the beginning have been consistent, relavent, truthful and if my opinion has any validity, effective.
Thank you for those efforts: Few could stand up against such odds but you have shown a type of bravery that is quite rare in today's world.
I (as well as many people throughout the world) wish you the best because if you are ultimately successful in exposing the sitting president for what he is we shall all reap the rewards of that success.
Our nation is at a crossroads and you, Larry, may be one of the very few whose efforts may truly help turn us back in the right direction.
That "bus" may have room for yet one more person to be thrown under and the initials BHO come prominently to mind.
Many are in your corner, Larry, ~ thank you, once again….