On 14 May 2025, AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke challenged polygrapher David Goldberg, host of the Inside the Polygraph podcast, to explain why, if as Goldberg had maintained in a podcast episode on pre-employment polygraph screening, “you can’t [beat a polygraph test],” any polygrapher would care whether a person has looked up how to beat a polygraph test?
In response, Goldberg invited Maschke to speak with him on the podcast. Their conversation, addressing topics including, but not limited to, polygraph validity, the potential effectiveness of polygraph countermeasures, and Maschke’s challenge, was recorded on 4 June 2025 and released on 23 June 2025:
I have listened to the first half hour of this interview and will probably add more points later on. Goldberg keeps pushing the benefits as an experienced polygrapher. This is like an astrologist, also a pseudoscientist, pushing their experience. Experience of a real scientist is applicable, but not a pseudo-scientist. Also, I imagine that the FBI agent who examined Dr. Maschke was very experienced, he worked for the FBI. Also, I bet the polygraphist who let Gary Ridgway off the hook “was the best in the business.” Because of this polygraph, Ridgway went on to kill at least another 20 women.
Hearing Mr. Goldberg talk about integrity and ethics caused me to chuckle.
As someone who has spent most of my career in government, both state and federal, I can relate to how hard it is to get good people to accept a government posting. Generally, the government does not pay as well as corporations, especially for highly skilled people.
Making government employees susceptible to various types of so-called lie detectors is a huge deterrent. Really, why put up with all that crap and just get a corporate job? A false positive can destroy a government career or prevent one from starting. Telling people before the test to “be honest” is a non-sequitur. I was honest on a CVSA and still “failed.” I was able to get my job back after my lawyer showed the ABC interview of “Dr.” Humble to opposing counsel, and they dropped the case.
I doubt Mr. Goldberg will ever listen to anything I ever have to say since he will never admit that polygraphs belong in the dustbin of history, but I would like him to interview some CVSA people and have them detail how the polygraph industry is holding back the VSA industry. If looks to me the worst enemy of the CVSA, is well, the CVSA.
Polygraphs are extremely accurate if you ask most people in the polygraph industry but are at best 70% accurate according to research I’ve seen. Polygraphs are also very easy to beat if you do a little research prior to taking a test. Polygraphs are not admissible in court simply because they are NOT accurate– but are routinely used to coerce a confession or used as leverage under the false promise that the accused (person of interest) will not face indictment. This is a ruse to gain more true or false incriminating information that will ultimately lead to a conviction. The person and company doing the polygraph are usually under contract with the county which represents: the Judge, the DA, the Sheriff, Police, etc. The polygraph company is at risk of losing this contract if they don’t please their pay masters and so it is never a good idea to take a polygraph provided by the prosecution.
Hey David, I would like to add to your post: Polygraphists are often employees or contractors of governmental organizations. If they want to keep their meal tickets, they must deliver the results their employers desire. I am also reminded of an article on this site a couple of years ago when a criminal defendant, Raymond Banks, proffered a polygraph saying he wasn’t the shooter in a pizza delivery driver’s murder. Thankfully, the Pierre, South Dakota court was educated enough to know all forms of so-called lie detection are inaccurate. A polygrapher has a similar relationship to their paymaster like a hooker has toward her pimp or John.
I can understand how a criminal defendant, who tend to have IQ scores a standard deviation lower, or around the 80s can be fooled into believing that a polygraph is an advanced scientific instrument and may confess to a crime. But giving a poly to a government employee or applicant will probably not elicit a confession. This demographic is usually intelligent to know that the poly is a pseudo-scientific device.
I see Mr. Goldberg has a lot of certifications, just like a scientologist (Scientology has a similar device to a polygraph called an e-meter), but I can find no formal advanced education. He kind of hinted he served in the US Navy, but I could find no rank or ratings, and I could find no work history outside of the polygraph industry. His only real job appears to be in the polygraph industry. With these limits, I can understand why Goldberg cannot abstractly reason that the polygraph is a pseudo-science.
Well, at least Goldberg doesn’t have a fake doctorate like Humble, Baker, Gelb et al.