Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 3rd, 2009 at 3:55am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The article I cited regarding the defector having passed three polygraphs ("U.S. hunts POW of '91 war," Chicago Tribune, p. 1, 24 April 2003) is no longer available for free on-line. However, it may be purchased from the archives of the Chicago Tribune here.
Posted by: Meangino - Ex Member
Posted on: Aug 3rd, 2009 at 1:25am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George, the links in this thread are no longer valid to the articles in this 2004 and earlier.  Do you have an active link to a source that states said defector "passed" three polygraph "tests?"

Thank you.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 2nd, 2009 at 7:23pm
  Mark & Quote
There is now conclusive evidence that the Iraqi defector ("Defector No. 2314") who claimed to have seen U.S. naval aviator Michael Scott Speicher alive and in Iraqi custody -- and who passed three polygraphs -- was lying. Speicher's remains have been found and positively identified at the site where his F/A-18 Hornet crashed on 17 January 1991. Fox News reports:

Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,536170,00.html

Remains of U.S. Pilot Missing 18 Years in Iraq Found

Sunday , August 02, 2009

Remains of the first American lost in the 1991 Persian Gulf War have been found in the Anbar province of Iraq after a nearly 20-year search, the U.S. Navy said Sunday.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has positively identified the remains of Captain Michael "Scott" Speicher, whose disappearance has bedeviled investigators since his jet was shot down over the Iraq desert on the first night of the 1991 war.

The Navy said the discovery illustrates the military's commitment to bring its troops home.

"This is a testament to how the Navy never stops looking for one of its own. No matter how long it takes," Commander Cappy Surette, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy, told FOX News.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, added, "we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Captain Speicher and his family for the sacrifice they have made for our nation and the example of strength they have set for all of us."

The Pentagon initially declared Speicher killed, but uncertainty — and the lack of remains — led officials over the years to change his official status a number of times to "missing in action" and later "missing-captured."

Family spokeswoman Cindy Laquidara said relatives learned on Saturday that Speicher's remains had been found.

"The family's proud of the way the Defense Department continued on with our request" to not abandon the search for the downed pilot, she said. "We will be bringing him home."

Laquidara said the family would have another statement after being briefed by the defense officials, but she didn't know when that would be.

"My heart goes out to the family, again," said Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida senator who was instrumental several years ago in getting the Navy to renew a search for the missing pilot. "We all clung to the slim hope that Scott was still alive and would one day come home to his family."

After years, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq finally gave investigators the chance to search inside Iraq. And it led to a number of leads, including what some believed were the initials "MSS" scratched into the wall of an Iraqi prison.

The search also led investigators to excavate a potential grave site in Baghdad in 2005, track down Iraqis said to have information about Speicher and make numerous other inquiries in what officials say has been an exhaustive search.

Officials said Sunday that they got new information from an Iraqi citizen in early July, leading Marines stationed in Anbar province to a location in the desert which was believed to be the crash site of Speicher's jet.

The Iraqi said he knew of two other Iraqis who recalled an American jet crashing and the remains of the pilot being buried in the desert.

"One of these Iraqi citizens stated that they were present when Captain Speicher was found dead at the crash site by Bedouins and his remains buried," the Pentagon said in a statement.

He was positively identified through a jawbone found at the site and dental records, said Read Adm. Frank Thorp.

Speicher was shot down over west-central Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991.

Hours after his plane went down, the Pentagon publicly declared him killed — then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney went on television and announced the U.S. had suffered its first casualty of the war. But 10 years later, the Navy changed his status to missing in action, citing an absence of evidence that Speicher had died. In October 2002, the Navy switched his status to "missing/captured," although it has never said what evidence it had that he ever was in captivity.

Another review was done in 2005 with information gleaned after Baghdad fell. The review board recommended then that the Pentagon work with the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the Iraqi government to "increase the level of attention and effort inside Iraq" to resolve the question of Speicher's fate.

Last year, then Navy Secretary Donald Winter ordered yet another review of the case after receiving a report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which tracks prisoners of war and service members missing in action. Many in the military believed for years that Speicher had not survived the crash or for long after; intelligence had never found evidence he was alive, and some officials felt last year that all leads had been exhausted and Speicher would finally be declared killed.

But after the latest review, Winter said Speicher would remain classified as missing, despite his strong reservations about the pilot's status and cited "compelling" evidence that he was dead. Announcing his decision, Winter criticized the board's recommendation to leave Speicher's status unchanged, saying the review board based its conclusions on the belief that Speicher was alive after ejecting from his plane. The board "chose to ignore" the lack of any parachute sighting, emergency beacon signal or radio communication, Winter said.

Speicher's family — including two college-age children who were toddlers when Speicher disappeared — believed more evidence would surface as Iraq became more stable.

FOX News' Jennifer Griffin and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 27th, 2004 at 11:29am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The polygraph, which was used by the Pentagon to bolster a defector's claim that U.S. Navy pilot Michael Scott Speicher was taken prisoner by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, is now being used to bolster the opposite conclusion!

Reuters correspondent Will Dunham, in an article published in today's New York Post under the title, "Missing '91 Pilot is 'Dead,'" cites a U.S. official who asked not to be named:

Quote:
The official noted that information from an Iraqi defector that Speicher survived and was held captive had been discredited. The official said Iraqi doctors who the defector said would know about Speicher have denied any knowledge of him and passed polygraph examinations.


Dunham fails to note that the Iraqi defector also passed a polygraph examination...
Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Jul 21st, 2003 at 4:25am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Seeker,
Good to "see" you back. Smiley
Posted by: Seeker
Posted on: Jul 21st, 2003 at 12:35am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Ahh...the problem here is this:  It is simply faulty logic to expect someone who is asinine and purile to also be a gentleman and take responsibility for his own actions.

Regards,


Quote:


BSDETECTOR,

George denied your charge. It would be appropriate for you to substantiate or withdraw it (and apologize). Who did George block from this web site? Who's posts have been censored?

Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Jul 19th, 2003 at 9:28pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Let George answer this charge himself.  I know he has blocked people and he knows it too.  And his statement that the board is uncensored is a lie.


BSDETECTOR,

George denied your charge. It would be appropriate for you to substantiate or withdraw it (and apologize). Who did George block from this web site? Who's posts have been censored?
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Jul 18th, 2003 at 4:04am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I knew someone on this website would get around to correcting my spelling or grammar.  I think we could even call that literary criticism.  Thanks HS. Wink
Posted by: Human Subject
Posted on: Jul 18th, 2003 at 3:55am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Anyone who's gone to graduate school and studies something besides literary criticism probably uses those terms.

And it's "EMPIRICAL".
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Jul 18th, 2003 at 3:50am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I think the mantra is "scientific validity, and empiracal evidence, and peer review."  Do you guys use those terms in your everyday lives?  Food you eat, products you use, entertainment you watch.  If you do I will voluntarily refrain from posting here any longer.
Posted by: Human Subject
Posted on: Jul 18th, 2003 at 3:41am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Saidme wrote on Jul 16th, 2003 at 3:52pm:
Also, regardless of the technology involved, wouldn't we as a nation use anything within our powers to find a US service member?  Regardless of the scientific validity?


This "regardless of scientific validity" thing has become something of a mantra around here lately.
Posted by: suethem
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 9:09am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The CIA could learn a lesson or two from the FBI- when the polygraph results don't match your theory (of the moment)-- blame Canada!   

Maybe the Pentagon polygrapher was a visiting friend from the frozen north.  Yes of course! Thats it!  This time will do it ourselves!  Guess what defector # 2314 ,we've got a problem.  Your holding something back! Look at this chart.  No, not the one you passed, this one!
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 8:38am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
A follow-up report by Rowan Scarborough in today's (17 July 2003) Washington Times  ("Senator asks Navy for report on pilot") suggests that Defector #2314 did indeed pass a DoD polygraph examination:

Quote:
The CIA plans to administer a new polygraph on the defector, who is said to have passed one conducted by the Pentagon.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 7:20am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
No one has been blocked from posting on this message board. You will note that we have even provided links to a variety of anonymous proxies to facilitate anonymous posting.

Posts are not censored, either. If you look around, you'll see a broad spectrum of views expressed, including ones critical of AntiPolygraph.org or of me personally. See, for example, Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector or Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection (in the latter thread I was accused of treason).

The only posts deleted have been blatant and off-topic commercial advertising, duplicate posts, or posts by unregistered users whose authors have contacted AntiPolygraph.org requesting removal.
Posted by: BSDETECTOR
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 4:25am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Let George answer this charge himself.  I know he has blocked people and he knows it too.  And his statement that the board is uncensored is a lie.
Posted by: Fred F.
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 3:14am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
George:  Your statement that is board is "uncensored" is a blatant lie and you know it.  I know for a fact that you have blocked people that you don't want posting here.



BSDETECTOR


Please identify those who CANNOT post to this message board. I am very doubtful that Mr. Maschke would block ANYONE from posting to this message board.

If you took the time to read the message header you will notice that it states:
Quote:
Anyone may post a message here. All points of view are welcome
 


Step up to the plate


Fred F. Wink
Posted by: Canadian Crusader
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 2:25am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I truely hope you don't sensor this site in any way shape or form George.

Open discussion is the backbone of our plight.  Regardless of how ignorant your opposition may seem.

Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 1:52am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Come to think of it, haven't heard from Batman lately. Shocked
Posted by: BSDETECTOR
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2003 at 12:14am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George:  Your statement that is board is "uncensored" is a blatant lie and you know it.  I know for a fact that you have blocked people that you don't want posting here.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 16th, 2003 at 7:17pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Saidme,

I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. One of the reasons that this message board is uncensored is so that any errors or misperceptions that might arise from bias may be corrected.

I do think that Senator Bill Nelson's reference to the first informant's having passed a polygraph test, and the Pentagon report's mention of polygraph outcomes and the fact that Defector #2314 was referred to the CIA for more polygraph testing are pretty strong indications that DoD has been relying on polygraph chart readings, and not just admissions gained by the polygraph.

If you have a different view, why not express it? Your bland assertion that I am "somewhat biased" adds little to the discussion.
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Jul 16th, 2003 at 6:29pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
That would be your interpretation!  Of course you're somewhat biased. Wink
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 16th, 2003 at 6:22pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
It's not speculation to say that DoD has been relying on the polygraph as more than just an interrogational prop. The Pentagon report leaked to the Washington Times makes that quite clear.
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Jul 16th, 2003 at 5:50pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George

You're doing a lot of speculating.  I think you call it wild conjecture.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 16th, 2003 at 4:41pm
  Mark & Quote
Saidme,

I am not using CPT Speicher's fate to "highlight" any "employment woes" but rather to call attention to, and invite discussion of, our government's misplaced reliance on an invalid test in its search for him.

As for whether we should or should not use anything within our power to locate a missing service member, regardless of validity, certainly not. For example, we shouldn't be relying on psychics, astrologers, or remote viewers for such purposes. While I have no in-principle objection to the use of the polygraph as an interrogational prop in such circumstances, no reliance should be placed on a polygrapher's interpretation of the polygraph charts.

It's clear from the leaked Pentagon report that DoD is using the polygraph as more than just an interrogational prop: they are using polygraph chart readings to bolster their conclusion that Defector #2314 is a fabricator. That DoD has asked the CIA "to conduct an independent polygraph of 2314" suggests that his DoD polygraph results did not fit the Pentagon's current investigative theory. Such governmental reliance on the polygraph is entirely inappropriate and could well lead to investigative misdirection.
Posted by: Saidme
Posted on: Jul 16th, 2003 at 3:52pm
  Mark & Quote
George

Shame on you!  You have sunk to a new level by using the fate of a US service member to highlight your employment woes.  Since you did drag it in let's take a closer look at the article.   

"Defector No. 2314 provided the names of several doctors who he said had knowledge of Capt. Speicher's whereabouts. "All denied having any knowledge; two have passed a polygraph exam," the Pentagon report says. 

The paper says the cell administered a polygraph exam to the defector, but it does not give the results. It says the military has asked the CIA "to conduct an independent polygraph of 2314." 

It appears as though through the use of polygraph, the investigators have discredited the source (defector).  Am I reading this wrong?

Also, regardless of the technology involved, wouldn't we as a nation use anything within our powers to find a US service member?  Regardless of the scientific validity?

Once again, shame on you. ???
 
  Top