George W. Maschke wrote on May 15^th, 2015 at 11:20am:


Keep going George and don't quit until you've won.  You will have a place in the history books next to William Wilberforce, the man who ended the English slave trade.  Some may ask if I'm equating the evils of the polygraph with the evils of slavery.  My answer is ..... Yes !

I note that today is the 20th anniversary of my FBI pre-employment examination, which, among other things, ultimately led to the creation of AntiPolygraph.org and my being here in Oklahoma City this week to observe Doug Williams' trial.

I ve been told that I, too, would make a great asset to the INTEL Community.   I'm sure that I would have, if I had made it past the popularity contest known as the "background check" at the crappity smacking CIA.

Checking for criminal history is one thing, talking to every asshole who claims to know me is quite another.
I find it amusing to read  about all the "moles" who are able to make it through the CIA's supposedly "impenetrable" wall of security.

If any CIA polygraphers or other agency Office of Security scum are reading this , I say ENJOY!   You deserve all the Ames', Richardson's, and  Howards that come your way!

Stephano
Oh of course.  Remember I was formerly employed by LEO.  I had a chance to attend a social function with a good number of former coworkers who were interesting in my current goings on.  I had some interesting conversations. No one really thinks its fair, and most had similar stories from their applicant days regarding polygraphs and the psychological screenings. Most people applied several places before landing somewhere.
The general opinion is that its extremely fallible but very useful in investigations where they need psychological pressure.  They think its bogus, but like the value of it when they have a fish in the boat so to speak.
One good friend uses it in criminal investigations once in a while, and from the conversation we had, probably read this site.  He said something to the effect of;
 
Whenever I send someone to take it, I already know they are guilty, so its not exactly news to me when they fail.  Even if they pass, it tells me they are a sociopath without a conscience and I'll need to change up my interview technique. Otherwise, its just baloney, biased against the innocent, and probably just a way for HR to strike applicants since agency staffing issues don't seem to mesh well with municipal budgets.  We want 60 guys, we can only pay for 30 guys.  Half the applicants get struck because we need a way to strike them that will not overtly indicate bias and get us sued.

He used a hypothetical argument of, if he sent one guy to one with a good idea he will fail, he can also predict the results accurately 98% of the time.  If he sends 100 random people to weed out potential sex offenders or something, he is going to waste a lot of time.   

He then spent 20 minutes instructing me on countermeasures he was aware of, all the way from sphincter puckering to anti anxiety medication.   

To me it sounded like he knew it was a sham as far as pre employment screening.  Note all the LEO's in the news getting busted left and right for everything from drug offenses to fraud.  How did they slip through?

On a side not, a lawyer friend discussed another angle with me.  He said I could consider legal options against the second examiner, because his pre exam questions regarding the other exam and examiner constituted breach.  He said I was at that moment trapped in a no win situation of either being uncooperative with his questioning, or providing him with the actual identity of another examiner he could potentially discredit, lessening his chances of scoring it fairly.  What do you think?

Quote:

If you become employed in LE, I sincerely hope that you will hang on to this feeling of frustration and powerlessness so that you can have some empathy when your department subjects ordinary citizens to this same disparaging treatment.

Hello All,

Just to throw in my two cents, I posted my own polygraph experience on another thread ONLY because I did not understand the result.  I had no intention of being deceptive, nor was I deceptive, yet was told I failed.  I have no idea why.  I came here looking for answers after the fact, primarily because as a former LEO it bothers me when my integrity gets questioned, made worse by the fact I am accused of being a liar by someone who is either themselves lying, or is an idiot with a bunch of squiggles on a chart interpreted as lying, either way preventing me from currently being employed at an agency when otherwise I am well qualified to work there.

In my case, I've been through a police BI before including a polygraph.  I passed.  I was not concerned or worried about taking a polygraph.  I figured they are pretty accurate, even if not scientifically worthy to use in court.   

The food for thought here is:
1) Why would I have taken a polygraph if I thought I would fail?
2) Having been through the backgrounds process before, why would I have intentionally concealed or lied about something KNOWING I would get polygraphed on it?
3) If I had lied and gotten caught, why wouldn't I have just slipped back into the ether and gone "oh well"?

Since attacks against my integrity and credibility bother me, I came here seeking answers.  I've actually received some good information from people on these forums, including some from a guy claiming to be a polygraph examiner, informing me that the way they conducted my test was the wrong way to do it.  He even advised me on how to file complaints.

I'm not saying every polygraph chart is wrong, or every polygraph examiner is bad, but something seriously went wrong with mine.  A test conducted improperly, had very real negative implications on my life.  That is why I'm here learning and talking about it.

It is very sad yet oddly comforting to know I am not the only one this has happened to.  I can also assure all of you, that since I started asking around, there is at least ten more people like me floating around just in my circle of acquaintances.  If this polygraph test really works then freaking fix it so it doesn't keep destroying people, or let it go, because if it doesn't really work then you guys need to get real jobs and stop screwing with mine. 

My heart really goes out to you, your's is an epic tragedy, my friend.  I trust you know you are hardly the first patriot to be wrongfully chewed-up and spat-out by the system.  I hope your life has become positive, and you are surrounded by love and happiness.

Irishgeek wrote on May 16^th, 2006 at 10:56pm:


Personally, I never trust anyone with divergent left eye syndrome.

Quote:


The polygraphers who come to this board swear up and down that a person failing the test while telling the truth is a very infrequent thing.  Of course, they are full of crap, and have nothing but horse pucky to back that up.

The polygraph hasn't really changed.  It was bogus 16 years ago, and it is bogus now.

It is not a test, but an interrogation disguised as a test.  The machine is just a prop they use to intimidate people.  The more you believe in the test, the more likely you are to fail.  Conversely, if you are totally convinced the test is a sham, you will be less like to fall for their crap.  It is similar to going to a used car lot armed with a ton of knowledge, versus going there knowing nothing about cars, or pressure sales tactics.

For what purpose are you taking another polygraph?

TC

In 1992 I was accused of stealing $600 cash from The Lane County Custody Referee's Office. I didn't do it, but someone did. I eagerly took a polygraph test to clear myself and to encourage the detectives to find the real thief. Well, I flunked. I hired an independant tester and he told me to never take a polygraph again. During this entire crisis, I was hysterical, not a good test subject. I lost my job, my career and my future in the justice system because of this horrible experience. I've never gotten over it because they never arrrested the person who did this to me in the first place. I was never trusted again and I was so tramatized, I never took a job that involved handling money for fear of being framed again.
It's been 16 years now. I plan on taking another polygraph test just to see if it will work now that time has calmed me down.
This experience changed the course of my life in so many ways, I cannot begin to explain it all here. Besides it's still too painful. 
I feel compassion for all people who have been falsely accused.
Thank you for this chat. It helps to know I'm not alone.
Jennifer

this guy trimaco has his own tv showw lol.. all about deception tas funny

Hi there..!!!

After reading the whole article:

http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml

I can only say that I'm very impress with George qualifications..!!! He's a real asset for the INTEL community.

If the FBI founds any deceptions/lies in anyones exam, why not conduct a deeper BI...??? In the case of the drug questions, if they found "deception" Why they do not conduct a Urine/Blood analisys...??? 

I was also checking the web site of this Jacko Trimarco http://www.jacktrimarco.com/ ; what a poser...!!!!

He must be ashame of being such a liar and now profiting of his lie-machine...!!!


I think the FBI is a great agency but jokers like this Trimarco guy and all the other Polygraphers give the agency a bad reputation. Pitty.....

Sgt.1107, 
            Your recent last two posts regarding why are so many polygraph examiners upset with this web site and how certain polygraphists seem to spend so much time on this board posting personal attacks while at the same time discrediting themselves, is by far, one of the best responses I've seen to date. 

  Surely, out of the many thousands of viewers who read this site, more than one person must have figured this out by now. If the polygraph testing system is "supposedly" so "accurate," then we wouldn't see one objectionable posting from anyone within the polygraph community. Instead, they would just laugh it off as a bunch of paranoid fools seeking answers and justification out of something to hide. It just tells me, they're defensive for all the reasons we, as an impartial, intelligent, suspicious, logical thinking human species have suspected all along.   

And Nonombre, I sincerely hope you don't think this is in any way a personal attack against you as a polygraphist, as this is not my intent. If you feel offended that the majority of posters on this site haven't bought into the "big lie," my apologies, but I'm sure you can understand the obvious concern regarding validity and credibility to the "profession."   

  As for your posts, personally, I find them quite beneficial and very informative. I really do. I must commend you for stepping up the plate in genuine objectionable arguments, when others in your community would rather sit back, read and not participate in the topics presented. I sincerely believe your contributions to this site are an asset to the discussion in general, which makes very interesting reading.   

  Regards, 

  mike_C. 

nonombre wrote on Aug 14^th, 2005 at 7:21am:

If Congressman had any balls whatsoever, they'd (in an undercover capacity of course) apply for a job that required a Polygraph.  If all 535 did this, I'm sure we'd see some traction.

Quote:


Bill,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I never confessed to lying because I did not lie. Moreover, my FBI file, which I obtained under the Privacy Act (minus my polygraph charts, which the FBI avers it cannot locate), contains no such allegation.

If anyone else has been told by a polygraph examiner that I confessed to lying, I would be grateful if you would provide me the details (individual making the allegation, agency involved, what was specifically was said, etc.).

Quote:

If anyone has read the personal statement of “Police Sergeant” on the home page of this web site, you would have seen that it was also reported to my agency that I had confessed to lying.  In my situation they were told I confessed to lying about stealing army equipment.  It simply wasn’t true, but the report was twisted around enough so it sounded plausible.  I didn’t get that job.  A “confession” in a polygraph examination is not always what a reasonable person would deem a confession in any other setting.

Needless to say, hearing that FBI polygraph examiners believe George confessed to lying doesn’t mean a whole lot to me.

Even if George lied on every single answer that doesn’t change the basic accuracy of the polygraph; I know from my own experience that the polygraph is inaccurate to the point of uselessness.  When the polygraph community answers questions about their profession with personal attacks they discredit themselves as well as their side of the argument.

Quote:



and I suspect that is why this antipolygraph "movement" has never picked up any steam in places like congress (where it really matters).  I believe that at the end of the day, when the witnesses leave the chamber, Mr. Mashke's dossier is tossed on the table, read by  the committee members, and he and his minions are summarily and appropriately dismissed.

3 of my 4 FBI polygraphers told me that George has confessed to lying about things and that this is a matter of record. so it seems he is quite legendary in at least FBI circles

Nonombre,

Can you let us in on anything else that is spoken of in “polygraph circles”?  It would seem to me that a polygraph examiner making negative comments about George doesn’t make George look bad – it makes the examiner look bad instead.

I still can’t help but think that if polygraphy was a scientifically valid test then no one would give a rat’s ass about who was speaking out against it or what they were saying.  

As I have mentioned before, part of my job as a police officer involves traffic crash reconstruction.  If there was a web site claiming that the speed of a vehicle could not be determined by measuring the yaw mark it left on the road prior to hitting a tree, I wouldn’t give a moment’s thought to it.  Newtonian physics can stand the heat because they are valid scientific principles.  

I couldn’t care less if someone put up a web site advising people to play certain songs on their car radio or paint their car blue in order to foul up the yaw mark measurements – I might laugh at it but it certainly wouldn’t bother me.  

Why are so many polygraph examiners so upset with the web site in general and with George in particular?

An afterthought:

Nonombre wrote:
Quote:


To those of us that have been the oh so rare, induced, solicited, caused, purposeful, incited false positive I ask of which circle do you speak?  The circle of tyrants?

To all of you zealouts who thing George is making some outlandish statement against you without cause:

I ask, what say you to his willingness to answer a straight-forward question?  Did he not provide full disclosure?  Has this particular question been posed earlier?  No?  Where have the bashers reclused to?

See that, he has been more forward than most of you pros have been.  When you find it within yourselves to do the same, please return.  If not, go to hell.

nonombre wrote on Aug 12^th, 2005 at 12:33am:


Nonombre,

I did not mention it in my public statement, nor have I publicly mentioned it elsewhere before now, but in the early 1990s I twice applied for a graduate student internship with the CIA. Both times, I passed initial written tests and was interviewed at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. As part of the process, I submitted to a polygraph screening examination each time. Each time, I sat for only one polygraph session, and each time was told the result was inconclusive. I was not accused of deception or subjected to a post-test interrogation in either case. Both times, I was asked if I'd be willing to come back for a follow-up examination, and both times I agreed.

In both cases, I was not offered the internship following interviews with managers in the Directorate of Intelligence. I recall that one supervisor, apparently not very impressed with my decision to major in Near Eastern languages, suggested that intelligence analysts don't really need to be fluent in the languages of the countries they report on, remarking "We have people to translate things for us." I was bewildered by that remark. I was also introduced to the person in charge of producing biographical reports on prominent political, military, and economic figures of a particular Near Eastern country. He was unable to read a newspaper in that country's language. I hope attitudes have changed regarding the importance of language skills at Langley.

In any event, as I mentioned, the CIA's polygraphers did not accuse me of deception and were actually quite courteous. I was left with the impression that I was not offered the internships based on my interviews, not the polygraph. Indeed, had I "failed" the polygraph during my first internship application, I doubt I would have been interviewed for an internship a second time.

It's possible that in the post-Ames polygraph crackdown at CIA, my charts were re-evaluated and scored as "Deception Indicated." But no such indication was made to me.

On a side note, during one of my trips to Langley, while speaking with other applicants at a motel in Tyson's Corner where we were staying, I was surprised to hear from one applicant for employment, not an internship, how she had been harshly grilled about her sex life and accused of lying. She found it all the more outrageous because she was a rape victim, and had been interrogated about that, too. I could hardly believe it, because my experience had been so different. I was not asked any sex-related questions on either occasion.

As for failing an LAPD polygraph, yes, LAPD polygrapher Ervin Youngblood, who had the foreknowledge that I had previously failed my pre-employment polygraph with the FBI, accused me of using countermeasures. It didn't matter that at the time, I did not even know what countermeasures are. I have discussed all this in greater detail in my public statement.

In any event, it is crystal clear that in the memo by the acting chief of the Defense Security Service's polygraph section that he was referring to my FBI pre-employment polygraph. My Army records, released to me under the Privacy Act, include no communications from either the CIA or the LAPD.

If "the talk in polygraph circles" is that I failed a CIA polygraph, then, as Jeffery indicated, it appears that someone has violated the Privacy Act.

nonombre wrote on Aug 12^th, 2005 at 12:33am:

George must be pretty famous in polygraph circles.  Hypothetically, if he had failed a CIA polygraph (not mentioned previously by him) then somebody broke the Privacy Act.

I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate.

Then again, not unusual for asshole polygraphers to break the law, since they themselves are in fact "above the law."

Quote:


Mr. Maschke,

The talk in polygraph circles is that you also failed a polygraph examination conducted by CIA (and possibly one by the LAPD).  Is this information incorrect?

Respectfully,

Nonombre

uiop,

Considering that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the only federal agency whose pre-employment polygraph I failed, I think it is a safe bet that when Brock Butterfield used the term "OGA," he was referring to the FBI.

Here is the relevant portion of my statement:

Quote: