Today, 8 October 2003, marks the first anniversary of the public release of the National Academy of Sciences's landmark report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Regrettably, in the year since the report was published, its conclusions have been almost completely ignored by federal, state, and local agencies that rely on polygraphy...

Quote:


Anonymous,
That happens?? I thought polygraphers were connsumate professionals, deeply respectful of their duty towards confidentiality...

(Since sarcasm seems to be the dominant mode today)

Skeptic

PDD-Fed,

If you truly believe what you said regarding Mr. Bracy then accuse him publicly and openly and be prepared to support your statements.  Otherwise your commentary appears to be nothing but cowardly libel stemming from backroom polygraph gossip...

Quote:


Wasn't that the same NCIS team that so successfully resolved the extent of Lonetree's betrayal against his fellow Americans?  You also might want to do some more research into Bracy's case.  He might have "got off", but that by no means proves he suffered any "ordeal" at the hands of NCIS.  In fact, I understand that debriefs of former KGB support his original arrest and prosecution.  It is one of the great mistakes of justice that he not only got off, but ended up as the dependant husband of a woman Marine, living in Marine housing at Quantico, Va., shopping at the commissary, and being cared for by the same military health care system provided by the heroes who protect us all AGAINST leeches like Bracy...

PDD-Fed

PDD-Fed,

The Marine embassy guards in Moscow who falsely confessed to espionage, and to whom I referred in my reply to Touche above, are Corporals Arnold Bracy and Robert Williams, and Sergeant Vincent Downes, USMC. Their ordeal at the hands of Naval Criminal Investigative Service (then Naval Investigative Service) polygraphers is one of the more shameful chapters in the history of polygraphy. You will find it summarized at pp. 245-46 of the 2nd edition of David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. Lykken's account is also cited in full beginning at p. 49 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


PPD-Fed,
If you're going to take the time to write up such long pieces of sarcastic fluff, you should at least register and have the post count towards your board seniority

Skeptic

Quote:


Wow!  I did not know that Clayton Lonetree "Falsely Confessed."  Gee, all those years he spent in prison, all the cooborating information gleened from former Soviet intelligence officials and his Russian Spy girlfriend (obviously falsley obtained, maybe through the use of one or more of those "coercive polygraphs.")  I am SHOCKED, and APPALLED!  All those judges and juries, WRONG!  All those congressmen and Senators, briefed in scores of open and closed door sessions, WRONG!  The entire American criminal justice and political systems, WRONG!  I am sooo glad to have found this website.  The ONE source for all truth and knowledge on this and all other topics.  George, you are a PRINCE! and a real American hero....Bravo!

PDD-Fed

Touche,

Thank you for abridging and posting the excerpt from Eugene B. Block's Lie Detectors: Their History and Use for our review.

Some troubling questions remain. If Hirt gave a full confession to being a Nazi spy, why was he never charged with espionage (and/or treason)? Block explains that "higher military authorities realized it would be useless to attempt a formal trial because the principal corroborating witnesses were either dead in Germany or in prison as war criminals." But I find this explanation hard to believe. Presumably, testimony could easily have been sought from any potential witnesses imprisoned as war criminals. Moreover, the alleged full confession to wartime espionage should have been enough for a conviction on treason charges without any corroborating witnesses. And it should have been possible to independently corroborate at least some details of the alleged full confession.

Was Hirt's confession genuine? Or was it like that of U.S. Navy petty officer Daniel M. King, who, during a coercive polygraph interrogation, falsely confessed to sending a computer disk to the Russian Embassy? Or the Marine embassy guards in Moscow who, during coercive polygraph interrogations falsely confessed to espionage? Or Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who falsely confessed to owning an aviation radio that was not his after an FBI polygrapher allegedly threatened his family?

On what charge(s) was Frank Hirt "confined in an American military prison?" Was he ever charged with and/or convicted of any crime by any military (or civilian) court? And why was Hirt, a U.S. citizen by birth, "returned to Germany?"

Could you tell us what source(s) Block cites for his information on the Hirt case? I'd be interested in any further details about this case that you (or anyone else) may be able to provide.

Touche,

As Mr. Mallah has well articulated, polygraph screening (I assume that you understand that your recent offering has nothing to do with polygraph screening and were not representing it as such) has no diagnostic value or validity.  It has utility only to the extent that the affected public is either stupid or ignorant.  Neither this site nor the NAS polygraph panel study/report can relieve stupidity, but both (through the continued dissemination of the NAS report and the daily activity connected with this site) are reducing ignorance on a daily basis.  To the extent that the truth is known (ignorance abated), any prior utility associated with polygraph screening is completely going down the tubes...

Touche,

Thanks for the summary.

Based on your summary and looking at this in the light most favorable to the polygraph, one would have to conclude that the polygraph extracted valuable information which was of potentially great assistance in the war effort, and but for the polygraph, we would not have uncovered it.

Skeptic's point must be remembered though, that it was not a polygraph screening that caught Hirt.  You would not consider his polygraph test to be a screening, would you?

Accepting your information and in the interest of fairness and avoiding confusion, it would probably be more accurate to say that polygraph screenings have never caught a single spy in all its history.

It is also worth noting that this test was administered in the 1940's, before, I believe, the public had much information about the polygraph.  It's clear from your description that Hirt believed in the power of the polygraph, and confessed accordingly.

Worth understanding here is how much his confession is attributable to good interrogation skills.  "Deceptive charts" plus poor interrogation skills generally equal no confession.  NDI charts plus good interrogation skills may still equal a confession.  My guess is that with all the information against Hirt, the polygraph examiner was going to take a shot at him no matter what the charts looked like.  What was there to lose?   


It would also be interesting to know whether the polygraph falsely accused any suspected Nazi agents, and in so doing, sabotaged the war effort by misleading investigators.

Finally, a key question is this (as George has simiilarly asked): what is the value of the polygraph when the subject does not believe in it, and will not confess based on its "findings"?  That brings us to the pure diagnostic value of the charts, and on that score, the NAS has spoken quite clearly.

touche wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2002 at 12:44am:


Touche,
Thank you for posting the information.  It may indeed be more accurate to say that the polygraph has not caught a spy since World War II.

A question I'd like cleared up would have to do with whether the results of the polygraph alone were truly indicative of deception by objective standards (most likely R/I standards, given the time period we're talking about) -- it's obvious Hirt was already suspected of being a spy.  Unfortunately, there's not enough information to gauge, based upon what you've quoted here, whether the confrontation/post-test interrogation was a bluff or the real thing (IOW, did the polygraph truly catch this man's deception, or was it used effectively as an interrogation prop?).

One thing that seems clear from the account, though, is that Hirt was not caught by a routine polygraph screening.  In fact, they might have had enough info by the time the polygraph was administered to give a concealed-knowledge test.

I'll have to look up other information on Hirt, if it's available.

Skeptic

Chapter 16

(Some paragraphs are shortened for space considerations. Some text has ben paraphased, but no meaning has been changed).

For more than four years, the shrewdest agents in American and allied military intelligence crried on a top secret investigation on two continents.  The investigfation focused on Frank Hirt, a man suspected of being a Nazi spy, who later proved to be operating under the direct orders of the Reich.

Credit for this achievement goes to a retired Berkley police lieutenant, Albert E. Riedel.

A native born American, Hirt spent much of his life in Germany.  He eventually became a solider in the United States Air Force and might have succeeded in continuing his espionage if not for the results of a lie detector test.

Hirt's activities began before the U.S. entered WW II.  British intelligence officers first became suspcious of his movement and shadowed him when he left Germany and began wandering through Switzerland.

After th U.S. entered the war against Germany and Japan, American intelliegcne agents joined the British in keeping a watchful eye on Hirt, but they lacked substantative evidence against him.

Intelligence agents trailed Hirt to Bermuda and observed him flashing laerge sums of money and later discovered that at one time, Hirt held the rank of corporal in Hitler's army. He was questioned by the British and soon left, arriving in Miami, where the FBI pickedup the trail. It was then learned that Hirt had been drafted into the Air Force and worked as a mechanic on a number of bases, but apparently because he was disliked, he was frequently transferred.

A high ranking officer called for Hirt to be arrested, yet the agents felt they needed more proof.  Someone suggested Riedel and a "lie detector" test.  Shortly thereafter, Hirt was arrested and brought to Riedel's office in California to have the test administered to him.

Despite the fact that he believed he would be vindicated by taking the test, Hirt was questioned by Riedel during the test. 

When confronted with the deceptive results of the test, Hirt stated: "Hell, I see I can't get away with it. I might as well tell you the truth". 

The story that the man slowly unfolded - a full confession - was startling. Not only did he frankly admit to spying for the Reich, but he also revealed every detail of his travels and his work under direct orders from Germany.

(A lengthy discussion takes place here where Hirt details how he performed his espionage activities, what his targets were (high altitude bombers)  and how he communicated with his handlers in Germany using invisible ink letters)

After the details of Hirt's confession had been put on paper, he was returned to miltary custody and confined in an American military prison.  He remained there long after the Nazi empire had collapsed.  A trial was considered after the war,but higher military authorities realized it would be useless to attempt a formal trial because the principal corroborating witnesses were either dead in Germany or in prison as war criminals. Hirt was finally returned to Germany, and he quickly vanished.

Okay, there it is.

Touche,

I'm not going to respond to all the retorts you've made, just these points:

If you have a point to make, then make it.  I'm sure it's within your capability to summarize the information and cite the source.  Any responsible attempt at refutation would require us to review the source and the information contained therein.  But it is, I say again, lacking in etiquette to merely give us a citation and say, essentially, "you're wrong about a particular point.  I will not mention what that point is, but if you go to the library and read the pages I told you about, then you'll know."

I'd be happy to assist George with the information contained within the book you cite.  The next time I am at the library, which should be sometime this month, I will check to see about the book you mentioned.
 
The fact that I cited Ed Curran in support of the contention that the polygraph has never caught a single spy is not responsibility-shifting.  It shows that if I am laboring under a misconception, it is a widespread misconception held even by one of the paladins of the pro-polygraph community.  If it turns out I am wrong, I will correct my personal statement on this web site, which is from where Dr. Park presumably quoted me.  I have never spoken to Dr. Park in my life.

Quote:


Just can't get a break can I? I am beginning to see what the pro-poly people say when they comment that it is useless to engage you folks in any discussion. I post something for you to review and I get attacked and accused of "lacking courage", being discourteous, engaging n a "hit and run argument", and being deliberately vague (all courtesy of Skeptic) Then you choose to agree with Skeptic and accuse me of being coy! I told you that I lacked the ability to get the material to you at that time. I understand the problems associated with your physical location and thought that Mr.Mallah would eagerly assist you.  I guess I was wrong.  How did he respond?  Instead of accepting responsibility for what he is attributed with saying; the word "never" comes to mind, he not so cleverly shifts the blame by reminding people that Ed Curran said "he was not aware..." C'mon guys! When I told you that I did not have the capability to provide you with what you wanted, that can hardly be referred to as coy.  Aren't you reading a bit into that. I told you that I wanted to provide you with the information and that I would await your response.  I was less than surprised when your friends initiated the attack..it showed me a lot about your group.  The material is rather lengthy, but I will try to get it nonetheless and type it into a posting.  And as for Skeptic, I do not care yif you join in the argument or not, I sort of expected a response first from George....you sound too much like a watch dog. Chill Dude!

Touche,

I largely agree with the views posted by Mark and Skeptic. I do think you've been unnecessarily coy up to this point.

Thank you for finally telling us what the pages you referenced are about: "it outlines a detailed use of the polygraph in WWII concerning the discovery of a Nazi spy."

For those who may still be mystified by your reference to Dr. Bob Parks and the American Physical Society, I assume you are referring to the following passage from the 25 June 1999 installment of Dr. Parks' weekly What's New commentary:

Quote:


As for Dr. Parks' views being those of the APS, I suppose you missed his famous tagline with which he concludes each issue of What's New: "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be."

touche wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 6:38am:


I don't buy it for a second, Touche.  I'm sure you are well aware of the private messaging capability on this board, and George and Mark's private email addresses are available here, as well.  It's obvious you publicly posted on this board precisely because you wanted to draw public attention to your claims of damning "evidence".  You admitted as much when you said:

touche wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 2:30am:


You are therefore in no position to complain about public commentary, and frankly I find your pretensions to offense over having your "private conversation" interrupted insulting.

I'm equally certain that if you were truly confident in your evidence, you'd summarize it here.  When I get the time, I'll look into an interlibrary loan, because I value the truth and go out of my way to debate issues honestly.  IMHO, however, your unwillingness to simply present your "evidence", preferring instead to loudly make vague pronouncements, speaks volumes.

Skeptic

I might agree with you, except for the fact that I specifically addressed my posting to George and Mark.....ever hear of interlibrary loan.

touche wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 6:07am:


Touche, if you want a private conversation on these boards you can send a direct message.  You, on the other hand, have been posting publicly.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but if you post something on a public bulletin board, by convention it's pretty much fair gaime for anyone.

Quote:


Unfortunately, it's not.  The book appears to be out of print and not even available in my local University library (a fairly comprehensive source).  

Furthermore, it's your evidence; present it!  I simply have little wish to buy a used, out-of-print book through Amazon to read one passage.

Good Lord, man: if the evidence is "irrefutable" as you say, you should have no qualms presenting it here.

Quote:


I'm sorry you felt your posts were visable only to George and/or Mark.  If you post something publicly, however, you really have no reasonable expectation of a private conversation, and what you're posting is of potential interest to everyone here.

Skeptic

See George/Mark, this is exactly what I mean. I was having a discussion with the two of you, and Skeptic somehow found it necessary to horn in and offer the same kind of...what did you guys call it..."ad hominem" arguments. Skeptic: if it bothered you THAT much, the citation was there for all to obtain. George couldn't get it because of HIS physical location and I suggested thatMark provide it for him.  No offense Mark and George because I believe you read and understood my posting where I commented that given my physical location, I was unable to get my hands on the source for George's purposes. In time, I am sure you will get it and see to what I am referring. Mark, you are correct, it outlines a detailed use of the polygraph in WWII concerning the discovery of a Nazi spy.  I just wanted you to read it completely, have an opportunity to check the sources and respond.  Skeptic, mind your own business.

touche wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2002 at 2:30am:


What a silly thing to say, given that you don't even have the courage to clarify to which statement you're referring.  Are you that afraid of fair debate?

This hit-and-run argument by innuendo is, indeed, very discourteous.

Quote:


Your clear reluctance to present it here so readers may discuss it and judge for themselves belies your claims of confidence.

Quote:


Another comical statement, given your deliberate vagueness here.

Either present your evidence or retract your statements, Touche.  You're not going to win any debate with arguments you never make and evidence you won't provide.

Skeptic

Mark....Now why should I do that? You and your friends would not believe me. Actually, I fully expect you to attack the authenticity of the book, when and if you ever read it. But that is okay, because many will go to the source and read it. It has nothing to do with what Curran said.  It is what you said to Park and what has been perpetuated on this site. I would appreciate it if you wouldnot lecture me on the iossue of coutesy. If you cannot keep up on the statements you make to people, perhaps you should not make them.  I merely asked you to assist your friend George because of his physical location and because I anticipated an attack should it come from anyone other than you allies. If you cannot, or will not, that is between you and him. It may take some time, but sooner of later, he will obtain it and the statement is irrefutable. I am not in a hurry, this book has been in print since 1977 and apparently neither you, George or the NAS took the time to read it or research their claims in the manner which one would expect scientists working on behalf of the government should.  I certainly hope that your readers will not think that other things you say may be less than precise?

Quote:


I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but I have a guess:   the statement that the polygraph has never caught a single spy in all its history.

If that is the statement you are referring to, bear in mind that none other than Ed Curran, on 60 Minutes II, said that even he was not aware of any spies caught by the polygraph.

Touche, it would really be so much easier and convenient and courteous if you facilitated discussion by summarizing the information contained within those pages.  If you do not want others to see it, you can send George and/or I a private message through this web site with that summary.

Unfortunately, no, I cannot assist. I am in an airport on a laptop and do not have the material with me.  Suggest interlibrary loan

touche,

Since it may be a while before I obtain the pages you've referenced, could you post a synopsis?

Unfortunately, at this time I have neither capability.  Inasmuch as the statement at issue appears in the much vaunted NAS report AND additionally attibuted to Mr. Mallah by Mr. Park and the American Physical Society, perhaps he (Mallah) can assist you in reviewing and providing you with a copy. Remember, this is but the first one.