George,

OMG!  You're going to cause them to fail before they even take the test!

The less subjects know about the test, the better off they'll be.

It's best they come in with a fresh and empty mind.

Trust me, polygraphers are there TO HELP THEM!

Don't cause the subjects to prejudge the process.

They are in GOOD HANDS.   

The polygraphers are NOT there to TRICK anyone!

I don't know where you got that idea.

And I don't understand why ANYONE would find this post "sarcastic".

Mr. Richardson,
Fascinating stuff.
I will be considerate of your holiday time. I am aware of the differences between p300 and fmri, I made an oversight by confusing the two. I do appreciate the fact that you recognize that the GKT polygraph test is a very accurate means to knowledge detection (so to speak.) I loathe the thoughts of innocent people being falsly accused also, and to paint polygraph examiners as thoughtless, mindless predators as many in this realm often do is rediculous. 

Yes, I want the bad guys caught.

I was not intentionally referring your past antipolygraph testimonies and your new career avenue in P300 Memory Detection as being chronologically overlapping. Apologies. 

I do believe it is telling that in all the peripheral career choices, you pursued an up and coming concealed memory detector. Sounds like fun, and hard work pioneering such things.

Can you state here any anecdotal or empirical information regarding the ease of which to engage in countermeasures with the P300 equipment?
P.S. I no longer administer polygraph tests, so I really am objectively fascinated by P300 waveforms, and their potential. 

Happy Holidays! 
Eric

Drew Richardson wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 4:50pm:


Fascinating stuff.
I will be considerate of your holiday time. I am aware of the differences between p300 and fmri, I made an oversight by confusing the two. I do appreciate the fact that you recognize that the GKT polygraph test is a very accurate means to knowledge detection (so to speak.) I loathe the thoughts of innocent people being falsly accused also, and to paint polygraph examiners as thoughtless, mindless predators as many in this realm often do is rediculous. 

Yes, I want the bad guys caught.

I was not intentionally referring your past antipolygraph testimonies and your new career avenue in P300 Memory Detection as being chronologically overlapping. Apologies. 

I do believe it is telling that in all the peripheral career choices, you pursued an up and coming concealed memory detector. Sounds like fun, and hard work pioneering such things.

Can you state here any anecdotal or empirical information regarding the ease of which to engage in countermeasures with the P300 equipment?

P.S. I no longer administer polygraph tests, so I really am objectively fascinated by P300 waveforms, and their potential.

Happy Holidays! 
Eric

Eric,

Addressing a few of your comments in no particular order:

1.      My reference to chaos was in connection to the application process in general and not with polygraph screening in particular.  I do not contest nor doubt your surprise at the notion.  It is perfectly conceivable to me that the chaos introduced by polygraphy would be felt by the end-consumer seeking to hire employees and human resources personnel seeking to facilitate this process and not by oblivious polygraphers who are more or less finished with the process with the provision of any error they may have introduced into the process.  This is particularly true in large agencies where these groups of people are likely administratively (if not geographically) widely separated.

2.      Although I performed nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiments in the world of analytical chemistry before there was such a thing as functional magnetic resonance imagining (fMRI), I have had no involvement in the latter in its various purported applications in the world of psychophysiology.

3.      The dependent measure which you have confused for fMRI and which I am involved with is event related potential (ERP) measurement in general and more specifically the P300 response as it relates to the detection of concealed information.  I am not involved in any sort of lie detection work.  I do not see any reason to believe that any dependent measure or combination of dependent measurements will ever lead to reliable lie detection.

4.      My various criticisms of lie detection began at least a decade prior to my formal and financial relationship to P300 work.  I have and continue to be a proponent of concealed information testing whether it be using the channels of the standard polygraph and a GKT format or other measures (e.g., P300, fMRI or other)  with other more sophisticated concealed information testing formats.   

5.      The application of pre-employment polygraph screening is little more than a poorly constructed fishing expedition.  No technology (i.e., combination of dependent measures) that I am ever associated with will be offered as an alternative to present polygraph channels for such purposes.  The application is fatally flawed--it will not work with anyone’s old or new technology.  That which I am presently associated with and which you allude to will be used for two purposes (it does have other potential applications in the medical and advertising worlds) in the context that we are speaking: (1) concealed information testing regarding specifically known-to-have-occurred events (e.g., crimes) and (2) determination of group associations (e.g., Does this person have specific knowledge of training, methods, organizational hierarchy that would indicate an association with Al Qaeda,  etc?).

6.      I’m with you on “catching bad guys.”  I presume you are with me on not wanting to catch good guys and gals in the virtual net designed for the aforementioned bad guys.  I will be literally and figuratively away for much of the time between now and the new year (so not available for much back and forth discussion) but will be happy to resume at that point.  Regards and happy holidays...

Well I guess the untruth lies in posting a 2006 photo back in to a 2002 forum post.

Please forgive me for questioning your credibility but surely you can understand why someone might doubt the truthfulness of someone who co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information.

Sancho Panza

Drew Richardson wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 1:51am:



Drew, interesting choice of words that you would characterize the polygraph application process as "chaos"---a first for these eyes, and I am being sincere.
What begs the question is that many of us are keenly aware that you are heavily invested in FMRI as a forensic tool, along with your business partner(s). It should come as no suprise that your opinions of polygraph remain activily negative (your previous testimony(s) PLUS your new business venture), especially since your company is seeking to replace the current modalities of lie and memory detection, respectively. I have high regard for that, as I feel that any tool that does a better job at "catching bad guys" is welcome. I would very much like to know how things are going on the forefront of that technology. A second question would be; when do you expect your research and others to become activated and the fmri to be readily used as a screening device, if at all? Thanks.

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 7:10am:


The time limit for editing posts does not apply to forum moderators and in any event was implemented with regard to regular accounts only this year.

Quote:


Google's cache of the post (retrieved by Google on 18 December 2007) provides independent confirmation that someone didn't.

Well I guess the untruth lies in posting a 2006 photo back in to a 2002 forum post and the private message that you sent to me on December 12, 2007 at 9:34 am that contained: 
"You can fix the typo by clicking on the "Modify" button in your post. (Posts may be modified up to 72 hours after they are made.)"
wasn't exactly true then. 
If our eagle-eyed FORMER agent didn't spot it when he rallied to your defense then someone might have gone back and typed that in AFTER our discussion began. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 10:34pm:


The picture in both posts is the same; I took it on the UCLA campus in February 2006. At the end of the first post in this thread, you'll find the annotation: « Last Edit: Oct 21st, 2006, 12:26pm by George W. Maschke ». I edited that first post so as to provide up front an illustration of how AntiPolygraph.org posters might be placed on college campuses.

Drew Richardson, I am not given to suggesting or implying anything. I pretty much say what I'm thinking. Your failure to understand is your deficiency not mine.

Answer the questions:  If one of your agents turned in the same surveillance photo twice and claimed they were taken years apart, what would you say? How would you react? 

Or would it be easier you for you to try to shift focus away from what I said by trying to spuriously interpret what I meant when my words were very clear in the first place.  

My point was made on my first post. George Mashke posted a photograph from a 2002 post in a 2006 post indicating that it was taken on a more recent trip to UCLA. The photo speaks for itself. Look at it. George is the person who made both posts over 3 years apart. It can't be explained away, either he did it or he didn't. Reading his posts make it obvious he did. 

I'm just the guy pointing out, The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector

You polygraph detractors always accuse examiners of lying,but constantly either refuse to acknowledge your own lies or attempt to justify them. 
 
Sancho Panza

Ok, Drew doesn't know.  How 'bout you George?

Yankeedog,

Admittedly I feel more comfortable characterizing the end result of pre-employment screening than I do the intent of its users.  That result would include amongst other things: chaos in the application process, injustice for many individuals, and a denial of qualified personnel resources for utilizing agencies and governments.

Although many comments on this site are interesting, they aren't all that informative.   

Question for George and Drew:  Do either of you guys really understand the purpose of a pre-employment screening polygraph examination?

Sancho Panza,

Clearly your reference to "RECENT" trip implied that you were suggesting that George had fabricated (or misrepresented the date of) a trip.  When your poor research was revealed to be what it is, you are now left suggesting that George mistakenly included an old picture in with new pictures (2006) that clearly had an antipolygraph.org poster included.  Give it up...you have no point to make.

Actually DREW the issue his his re-use of the same picture which was the ONLY picture used in his 2002 post and then posting it again leading people to believe that it was from a 2006 visit. Irrespective of whether or not he went to the campus in 2006. Saying that this picture was from a "RECENT visit is not true regardless of whether or not he actually went to the campus in 2006.  I didn't say his entire post was a lie, just the picture. You are a former FBI agent aren't you? If one of your agents turned in the same surveillance photo twice and claimed they were taken years apart, what would you say? How would you react?  

He padded his post with a blatant falsehood. YOUR defense of his false behavior is just another example of  The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. Here is a man who blatantly mislead his readership and up pops Drew Richardson in defense of his falshood.  What's more important THE TRUTH or making sure Mr. Mashke doesn't suffer any embarrassment for his behavior?  Or is this another example of what might be refferred to as a JUSTIFIABLE LIE. 

It doesn't really matter what you think of what he did. It is a plain simple fact that he represented the same picture as representing 2 visits over 3 years apart YES or NO?

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

I don't speak for George, but I do notice in the 4th picture down in the 2/27/2006 (that you apparently have referenced in error as 2/27/2007) response that there is a poster entitled "The Defeat of Solidarity" dated 2/16/2006.  Doing a Google search with the name of the talk and UCLA I find that such a talk did take place.  You are a criminal investigator, yes?

find it interesting that the photo that you posted on 12/13/2002 is exactlyy the same photo you posted on 2/27/2007 referencing a "RECENT" trip to UCLA. 

The trees are the same height, The foliage is the same, hmm even the little tear-off pieces are in exactly the same position. 

This is either an astonishing coincidence or possibly an example of The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. 

Sancho Panza

I just found out about this site today. I plan on posting these up next semester at my college, and maybe some others in Boston as well though!

An anonymous contributor has kindly provided a Spanish translation of Poster #4, which explains how to beat a polygraph "test." Click on the image to download it:

On a recent visit to the UCLA campus, I had the opportunity to place some of AntiPolygraph.org's posters:

Sergeant1107,

I'm glad to hear of your efforts and the results obtained to date with your poster distribution.  That is exactly the sort of thing that is needed.  Law enforcement officers are not stupid.  Those NOT involved with the process (i.e., those other than polygraphers and the management who were involved in supporting polygraphy/the status quo as they rose through the ranks) will see "lie detection" polygraphy (particularly polygraph screening) for what it actually is (foolishness) when presented with all the facts.  Are there national organizations such as the IACP (for executives/managers) for the working levels (the next managers/executives) that you feel this could/should be shared with?  These are the people who need to be broadly reached with the message you are sharing in a narrow fashion via the posters.  Regards....

Sergeant:

Very gutsy--I imagine you'll be voted employee of the month by your peers...lol. It's actually very surprising to learn how little a lot of cops know about the polygraph's invalidity. Good job!

I've printed out two of the posters and put them in my police department.  They've generated lots of questions from cops who had never heard of anyone having doubts about the polygraph.

Jeff,

Thank you very much for helping to spread the word about polygraph screening! (I'm also glad you've found this site to be interesting. You might wish to register on the message board.)

I attend a university with a Criminal Justice program--thus various federal and state agencies are often recruiting on campus.  I'll make sure these are up as soon as possible.

My current intentions in terms of career center around analytical positions at one of the intelligence agencies--so this site has really been invaluable.   

Thanks