Polyman2002,

You wrote in part:
Polyman2002 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2002 at 11:29pm:


you write:
"If you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you?"

If you believe that total and complete honesty will guarantee an NDI "passing" result, then you are a very naive and gullible individual. Surely you do not actually believe that...

You also write:
"Think about it.  Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques."

I feel certain that the original author "Anonymous" of this message string is in fact very proud that he passed his FBI pre-employment polygraph exam. Furthermore, if you also think a poly alone revels all adverse in ones background; again, you are very naive. All FBI special agents to include most professional support positions require a SSBI for TS. Even a janitor position with the bureau requires TS...

If you think a polygraph is superior to a NAC/LAC (National Agency Check, Local Agency Check), then you probably still also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny... 

That being said, do you feel that "Anonymous" should have simply told the truth and risked a "false positive" result? And if so, if he had been the victim of a false positive, what would you say to him then.? 

I think all readers on this board would like to know what you have to say to the victims of a true "false positive" result.

Please indulge and enlighten us all...

xxx

Polyman2002, 

Do you guys actually believe that polygraph testing is the “only” answer to solving crime? 

You wrote:
“Without the polygraph, not only would child molesters go free to exploit other children; but murderer's, robbers, and other scum of the earth would continue to reap havoc in our society.”

Do you not support other methods of crime solving such as: standard police work, detective work, visual surveillance, electronic surveillance, undercover work, undercover agents, confidential informants, common street snitches, interrogations, co-defendant confessions to cut a deal, neighborhood watch, crime stoppers, eyewitnesses, stake-outs, police line-ups, victims descriptions, etc, etc… 

You guys seem to signify in your posts that polygraph is the answer to all crime. In actuality, polygraph testing catches very few criminals and/or suspects? The threat of a polygraph may bluff a “confession” from a criminal that already has significant overwhelming evidence incriminating them. But to think, believe, or suggest that polygraph testing alone bluffs countless confessions is overstated.

With regard to the many claimed confessions gained by all of the “pro-polygraph” guys on this board; that is merely a “personal and anonymous” unsupported claim. 

If I were a professional polygrapher working for any of the many federal agencies, and I openly claimed to be able to detect and identify polygraph countermeasures with unquestionable accuracy, I would identify myself, the agency I worked for, and I would also accept the public challenge posed by Drew Richardson and prove him wrong. I would not hide behind an anonymous message board identity.

I would be very proud to be able to prove my ability to bluff confessions of employed polygraph countermeasures. I would also inform my superiors of my exceptional ability, and further openly challenge anyone to try-me. 

Just imagine all of the national publicity, notoriety, fame, admiration from your peers that you would gain… if I was truly capable of doing what many polygrapher’s claim to be capable of doing on this board, I would be on 20/20, Dateline, 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes II proving my case. 

I would lend some credence to the recent NAS report on polygraph as reliable documented support of our belief on this site that polygraph testing is inaccurate and should not be relied on. 

Please point-out or reference any source of reliable proof supported by documented scientific study supporting the diminishing reliability of polygraphy testing.


Respectfully,
Triple_x

Sorry, Skeptic--even if of a mind to do so (hard to imagine such a state of mind though), I couldn't force myself to write that poorly...

Skeptic wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 7:10pm:


I admit.  I did make a posting pleading for polygraph proponents to throw us some bones before all of the loonies came out of the shadows.  That was only in response to multiple threads on using the polygraph for orgasm verification.  You guys were getting cabin fever.  

That's why I like your quotes Skeptic, you are an equal opportunity skeptical person.  

If I could come up with some of these ideas that have been appearing than I could be making big money writing for MAD Magazine.

Let's not become cannibalistic just because the polygraph proponents seem to be giving up.

Polyman2002 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 4:14pm:


OK, no one can be this clueless.

Polyman, the site has a search engine, not to mention an area for testimonials.  Several people here have indeed taken polygraphs and been falsely accused.  It ain't a secret, bud.

You guys are not helping your case.  At least with the pre-NAS polygraph crowd, there was a pretense that polygraphers were educated, intelligent people.  By contrast, I honestly doubt all of our current crop of pro-polygraphers put together could outsmart a chair.

In fact, I almost wonder whether this isn't a campaign by anti-polygraph people to make polygraphers look bad and give us something to do.  It was getting pretty boring, for awhile.

Fair Chance or anonymous, this isn't you, is it?

Skeptic

Polyman2002 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 4:14pm:


The NAS report stated that prescreening and screening Federal Employees serves no security purpose (and thus should be considered a waste of taxpayer money as far as I am concerned).  

The NAS report stated that using such test will falsely accuse many innocent people.

The test has no validity.  I would not let the results taint my opinion of anyone who passes or fails the test.

If I can wire patches to a subject's forehead, connect it to a box with lights and paper, and convince thousands of test subjects that it works and can detect lies, I am bound to have some great confessions and success stories.  When people find out that it is nothing but an empty box, it stops working.

The NAS report confirms what many of this webpage have believed:  the box is empty and so is the "truth" of many who believe that they can use it to tell fact from fiction.

Beech Trees,

Another problem with "patriot's" theory that this website is some kind of a conspiracy to spread disinformation is that we have provided here an uncensored forum for discussion and debate of polygraph issues. We don't delete the posts of those who disagree with us (unlike the frightened minds who operate the pro-polygraph website, PolygraphPlace.com).

Beech Trees,

Ironically, the unintellectual "noise" being made by our pro-polygraph friends is sending a very powerful "signal" that critically thinking visitors to this site won't fail to recognize.

Quote:


Perhaps they are unleashing their adolescent children to deal with us. In all sincerity, it would be truly frightening to contemplate that the recent posters here are the actual men & women of law enforcement entrusted to serve us.

Quote:


Indeed.... each of the inane posts only serves to reinforce: A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I suspect the signal-to-noise ratio will increase for the worse in weeks to come. (Note to The_Breeze: I am a ham radio enthusiast, so I am qualified to use the 'signal-to-noise' metaphor)...

Beech,

I think I've picked up on the prevailing modus operandi here...lacking any intelligent thought, logic, and reason for existence (following the NAS report), the polygraph-screening community has decided to unleash all that remains--illiteracy, lack of diction and a serious dearth of writing ability.  Does there exist some super secret requirement in that community not to have scored over 400 on the verbal portion of the SAT??   Admittedly, reading this tripe has become quite painful   I suppose to that extent, they have succeeded… 

Way to go Lawpolyman,

Keep up the good work.  As a matter of fact, without the polygraph, not only would child molesters go free to exploit other children; but murderer's, robbers, and other scum of the earth would continue to reap havoc in our society. I guess the anti-polygraph folk didn't consider this.  Lawpolyman?  Could it be that some of these anti-polygraph folk took a polygraph and failed it.  Ooops, did I let the cat out of the bag,( Meooooow), open a can of wriggly worms.

Quote:


The polygraph is highly touted as an important part of national security programs.  Yet the testing has not caught one known spy.  The main reason for pre-screening use has no history of success.

The stockholders of any business would be up in arms about the money wasted on a business procedure that did not produce any results and cost so much money.

I am a taxpayer and I am allowed to discuss and bring attention to what I believe is a waste of resources.  The government law enforcement computer systems are ancient.  Use this money to hire more computer specialist and equipment.  Let's go into the 21st century instead of staying in the Dark Ages.

Quote:


I'm certain I wrote it faster than you read it.

Cheers,

Dave

Posted by: skeptic5 Posted on: 10/31/02 at 23:55:19
You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees

Tsk...tsk....those who can't come up with any proof or logic are at a loss...they cannot comprehend the ease and ability to counter their nonsense within, at most, two minutes.  A lot of time on our hands?  No, that would be the polygraphers who are feeling the insecurity surrounding their jobs right now.   
Certainly in these most difficult economic times we can all appreciate the polygraphers overwhelming sense of fear over the very short time left for them to practice their voodoo.  I suppose they are all going to have to jump a plane to Israel, China, Africa, or one of the other countries where this pseudo-scientific fraud is practiced.  Is this a fair thing for those who have stolen the livelihoods of so many?  Is it fair for those who perpetuate a fraud?  I think so.

You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees

patriot wrote on Oct 31^st, 2002 at 11:24pm:


I fail to see the logic of your assertion. If someone successfully passed their polygraph while employing countermeasures, wouldn't they be joyous and not miserable?

Quote:


I'm curious which posts specifically you feel are counterfeit or embellished or mere repetitions by the same poster. Could you point them out and tell us who you think is the culprit, and why?

Quote:


Unfortunately the hard facts don't bear out your fantasy theory. The National Academy of Sciences report indicates that an honest person has an equally random chance of passing a polygraph as a dishonest person.

Quote:


Are you really? Everyday you catch one or more of your polygraph subjects attempting countermeasures? Who are these people? Would you mind providing specifics as to the kinds of countermeasures employed, how you detected them, and how you then obtained 'full confessions'?

Quote:


Ohhhhh I get it now. We're here spreading the disinformation that polygraphy is nothing but a sham of a pseudo-science masquerading as legitimate, and that anyone with fairly short notice can master simple, easy to use physical and behavioral countermeasures that are undetectable by The State. That way, when people are foolish enough to believe those assertions, they employ the countermeasures, are effortlessly caught by people like 'patriot' here, and then those same foolish people are somehow secretly indoctrinated by us to come BACK to this website and lie that their State-sponsored interrogator didn't know whether to shit or go blind, so dazzling was their use of these countermeasures... thus enticing still MORE people to believe what I guess we should now (according to the Patriot Braintrust) call 'The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector'.......... Ummmmm yeah. That's it. 

Sherlock Holmes you ain't sport.

Quote:


Must be that ring of Netherland-based American citizen opium-smoking Iranian operatives I've heard tell about. All very 'hush-hush' don't you know.

Quote:


Yes, imagine that horrendous number. How many would be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Oh my God, MILLIONS? Hey Zippy, in the course of human events, not one spy has ever been caught with the polygraph. So, you tell me, is zero equal to, greater than, or lesser than zero?

Go back to the drawing board Chuckles, you didn't crack the case wide open with this post.

patriot wrote on Nov 1^st, 2002 at 5:43am:


Watch "patriot" fail to back up any of his libelous statements regarding Mr. Maschke.  Advice to the casual reader: don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so.

Talk is cheap, "patriot".  And libel is actionable.

Quote:


"Patriot", if my point were a bird, you'd have shit on your forehead.

The primary findings of the NAS, which you ignored in your screed, was that the polygraph is a danger to national security and should not be used for security screening purposes.  The lack of adequate "lie detection" methodology to replace the polygraph (which itself is inadequate) does not mean the polygraph is better than nothing -- as the NAS explicitly stated.

Quote:


Patriot has obviously completely missed the point of the NAS report.  Perhaps they should add "reading comprehension" to the required coursework for polygraphers?

Skeptic

Patriot,

You write:

Quote:


How do you "know" this?

Quote:


Oh? Please tell me more.

Quote:


I see. So why did you knowingly and falsely state that I work for the Iranian government?

Way to go. Ive been administering Polygraph for about 1 year and have gotten 8 confessions. Two of these were from child molesters. If it hadnt been for the polygraph and my charts they would have gone free and re-offended.
I don't think you had this in mind when you started anti-poly.
At least I hope you didn't.

Maschke - I am not disputing what "public statements" you may have made, however, I know for a fact you made illegal drug use admissions during the course of your polygraph, & that is ultimately what did you in.  Obviously you are very bitter about that, and have actually lied many times over in your "public statements".  Also, I realize you do not outwardly work for the Iranian government, but instead, a psuedo linguistic services outfit (overseas) that has ultimate ties to the Iranian government.

And to you Skeptic, what does your God's background have to do with the legitimacy of polygraph?  Do you really have to ask?  Obviously if he's lying about his own poly experience, and his employer, he cannot be trusted to be truthful about anything he speaks.  Whether it be about poly, or his reasons for trying to discredit it.  I noticed your God did not address the issue I brought up about the demise of crucial intelligence/national security investigations/information if poly is banned.  Again, it seems as if his motivations are not would he would like you to believe.

Also Skeptic, regardless of what the NAS said about screening exams, again, I reiterate, "THERE IS NOTHING BETTER".  Deal with it!!  The point they were addressing, as am I, nothing better exists in lie detection, no matter the scenario you're testing.  And, unlike many on this site, I do not need public recognition of the good work I'm doing.  I've got the written confessions, I don't need to share them with you to feed my ego.  I stand behind my patriotic work.  Keep setting them up on this site, & I'll keep knockin 'em down.

Patriot,

Regarding the following:

Quote:


I have publicly mentioned on numerous occassions (including a written statement submitted for the record to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary at its 25 April 2001 hearing on polygraph screening, and on national television on CBS 60 Minutes II) that I "failed" an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. However, I made no "significant admissions" whatsoever with regard to drug use (or any of the relevant questions). I have never used any illegal drug, nor have I ever used any legal drug illegally. And I do not currently work for the Iranian government, nor have I ever done so in the past.

patriot wrote on Oct 31^st, 2002 at 11:24pm:


Patriot,
There's just one problem with your analysis: it is beyond dispute that the polygraph as it is used today falsely flags many innocent people.  The NAS's study has buried that particular argument.  It's over with.  Done for.  The debate is finished, and you lost before you began; you arrived about one month too late.

Quote:


Sure you are, Patriot.  Care to provide some proof?  Dr. Richardson has issued a simple challenge that should make it easy for you.  Think of the fame and fortune that would be yours if you prove your ability to detect countermeasures publicly!

Quote:


Even if you could provide proof for any or all of the above, what do these things have to do with the efficacy and fairness of polygraph testing?

Quote:


Actually, the NAS ultimately stated the polygraph should be abolished for security screening.  The "nothing better" referred specifically to methods of lie detection, not security screening.  Perhaps if you would actually read the report and not rely on the DoDPI/APA talking points, you wouldn't appear quite so much the fool.

Skeptic

Dear Patriot,

In the Middle Ages, they used to bleed people in order to "cure them."  Many people died from this process because "there was nothing better at the time."  We now look back upon it and say, "How barbaric!"  We will soon refer to polygraph testing for security in the same way in the future.

Skeptic -  In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!!  In other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see!  it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system.  If others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly.  We can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday.  I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!), then more people will attempt countermeasures, get caught, become disgruntled with the system they never even gave a fair chance, help bolster the lawsuit, help the initial losers feel good about their own failures, etc.  For example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant.  Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government.  A little scary don't you think?!  Makes you wonder what his real motives are.  Imagine if Maschke was successful in his drive to "outlaw" poly, how many crucial intelligence cases regarding national security would be lost, if poly couldn't be used.  Or is that what he wants to see happen?  Might help his middle eastern friends infiltrate this country even more than what they've already done.  As the NAS ultimately stated regarding poly, "THERE'S NOTHING BETTER".  Or was that sentence left out when Maschke posted the NAS findings for all of his anti-poly friends to read??!

Fair_Chance,

I appreciate the "heads-up" with regard to the referenced culprits and their insulting and unwarranted posts on the board.

Following my previous post, I perused the board and noted several unwarranted insults, and personal attacks by the referenced individuals you mentioned. I now realize I fail victim to their ploy... 


Respectfully,
triple_x