Overview: Larry Sinclair is the man who claimed he had gay sex and shared cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999. The website whitehouse.com challenged Sinclair to take a polygraph examination concerning these claims. We also did a reverse speech analysis on Mr. Sinclair’s claims as heard on the Jeff Rense Program of January 23. Our results can be seen here. We reported that our analysis determined that Sinclair was telling a true story. Our findings contradicted the recent polygraph test which claimed ‘deception’ was ‘indicated.’ Since that time, there has a been a furore on the internet about the test. It has since been discovered that the polygraph examiner’s PhD is a fake from a diploma mill. There were also huge inconsistencies in the second examiner’s evaluation of the data and findings thereof. These can all been seen on our original Sinclair page. On top of all of this, there are rumours of a $750,000 payoff by David Axelrod of the Obama campaign to whitehouse.com to shut the entire Sinclair ‘problem’ down by paying Sinclair to take a polygraph test and then releasing a skewed, corrupted report on it. Larry Sinclair subsequently made a second appearance on the Jeff Rense Program on February 26th to discuss the polygraph test and the very strange events surrounding it. You can hear the Rense-Sinclair interview here.
Conclusion: Like his first interview on the Jeff Rense Program, Larry Sinclair’s reversals are congruent – ie: He is telling a true story.
Click on the reversal to hear the mp3 file. The exact forward words where the reversals occurred are marked with brackets – [ ]
"They [wanted to know] who in media I had spoken with, what media outlets, what reporters, it was just a fishing expedition." Wanted to know (This is a mirror image reversal, saying the same thing backwards as it is forwards. It shows congruity.)
"I had been challenging him on Sunday because he called me on Sunday and [said that he had received the] reports from Dr Gelb." Release you. They hid this (Maybe a reference to delaying the release of the report – certainly they never released the second report or the videos of the examination.)
"…suggesting that I agree to a flat fee as opposed to the $10,000 to [take it and then] $90,000 if I passed." And then they fake it (Does he believe the polygraph test was faked?)
"And I immediately copied the email and pasted it to an email to Mr. Parisi and I asked him, I said excuse me can you explain this email to me please and can you explain to me why it is that you did not bring this to my attention [before you] had me convinced that this person was in fact a legitimate Phd." Your fib (He is accusing Mr Parisi of lying.)
"The only dealings [I expect with Mr]. Parisi is to honour his commitment on his check and if he does not do that and that check is returned to my bank in Duluth unpaid then the next dealings I will have with Mr. Parisi is swearing out a warrant for his arrest." But soon they’ll get scared (Congruent reversal. He means it!)