Barry_C wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:28am:


Of course I have read US v. Scheffer, it is required reading for any polygraph related research. 

I was not implying anything, in fact that is part of the problem here at Antipolygraph.org, everyone is on edge and people read in motives and underlying meanings to everything.  I was just having a little fun, that's all.

BTW, thank-you for the textbook recommendations.  I'll start looking for them.

Do you know what they said in that case?  I've read the entire opinion.  They didn't say polygraph didn't work if that's what you're implying.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 11:54pm:


Well, I'll see your New Mexico Supreme Court and raise you a U.S. Supreme Court.  In U.S. v Scheffer, the court said: ... Oh hell, never mind.

Quote:


That's not true. You just pay a higher price, statistically - so to speak - with a smaller sample.  (You use a different statistic, which requires "more" evidence to make a determination that something is (statistically) significant. 

The reason you break studies down like this and do ANOVAs is to avoid needing an astronomical sample size.  It's very common.

I think you should write the journal editor and peer reviewers and let them know your concerns.  See if your critique can pass the peer-review process.

Quote:


You might want to read the study again.  You've missed a little something.

Quote:


And the New Mexico Supreme Court used that same report to support the acceptance of polygraph in their courts.

Let's not forget that they still found single-issue tests worked.  The biggest reservations seemed to be the then believed possibility of countermeasures, and that fear appears to have very much colored the authors' conclusions and speculations, but recent research has demonstrated that fear to be unfounded.

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 4:43pm:


I for one, can relate to that.

Sancho:

I have read Croddy, and it is my understand the claim was dismissed because the court ruled that the applicants could not claim a constitutional violation because they had no constitutionally protected property right to employment.  IN otherwords, no "standing".

Sancho and Mr. Nelson:

Regarding the Honts study, I was not criticizing Professor Honts himself nor his background or qualifications, just his work in this particular study.  I fully admit I have not read all his published work.

I also fully admit I am not a math whiz, and it has been 25 years+ since my undergraduate course in psychological statistics.

The Honts study has too many variables, the worse being:

College students self-reporting that they read some or all of TLBLD.  Of course, they had to say that to get extra credit. The amount of actual study of the material, or the attempt to actually decieve the polygrapher is not quantifiable, and thus unable to be replacated.

Good scientific study is by necessity, able to be replacated, in order to eliminate the possible bias of the researcher.   

Additionally, each sub group tested only had 10 individuals.  To even start to be statistically valid, the number should be 20 or more.   

Lastly, because the results of that study indicated only about a 70 percent acccuracy rate, that also is a serious flaw in making any determination about the ability to use countermeasures, because the data itself had a 30% error rate, (approx).

If questioning the study means I am arrogant, then guilty as charged.  I am in good company though, as expressed in USA v. Williams by Judge King:

"Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science (“NAS”) questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy - including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies."

The entire ruling is available here:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf

For everyone's information  Mr. Maschke has notified me by personal message that " I wish I had time to provide lengthier replies to you, but at the moment, I hard pressed for time." 

I think that everyone should be made aware that he is currently very busy and may be unable to provide complete replies to our posts currently and in the near future. I think we will all look forward to his responses when he has the time to make them. 

Sancho Panza

nopolycop wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:24pm:


Wow nope,

You must be a gifted researcher, to be able to comment that critically on the Hont's study. Last I recall you were having trouble understanding Hont's math. You should probably publish the study you did in college, or perhaps you already have.

Gentlemen, there you have it. Nope' is smarter than Honts. 

At the very least  Nope,'  you might do Mr. Honts the courtesy of a telephone call or email message to educate him in the inadequacies of his methods - that he might try to do better in the future. That would be very positive contribution. 

Seriously, that kind of arrogance is unbecoming, almost troll-like, in its biased, vacuous, and potentially misleading content.



r

nopolycop wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:24pm:

If you haven't maybe you should read the entire Croddy ruling. I offer as a matter of established law, that summary judgment may ONLY be granted if the judge finds  the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


If you wish to discuss HONTS qualifications and abilities as a scientific researcher, maybe you should discuss them with the Co-authors of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. They cite Honts research numerous times is support of their contention regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, Surely you wouldn't argue that research is only valid if it supports your position? Or maybe you think that the authors should not have cited his work because it is faulty, or perhaps you would like to point out the differences in methodology that support the validity of the studies that were cited versus the study, which is certainly "subsequent research" you chose to label as invalid.  Thank you for telling us you have a psychology degree I'm sure many of us would have never guessed. Your education should more than qualify you to answer these questions. 

Sancho Panza

When I woke up this morning I had a terrible head cold. I see upon review of my last two posts that I have made some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Unfortunately I lack the energy to go back and correct them.  
Please excuse them and I will endeavor to do better the next time. 

Sancho Panza

Sancho, you remind me of the old joke about the fellow who went to a clairvoyant/fortune teller.  The first thing the clairvoyant asked is "So what can I do for you?"  He replied, "you are the clairvoyant, you tell me."

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:01pm:


My reading of Croddy tells me the court found the plaintiffs did not have "standing" for the claims asserted.  Too bad, because it would have been good to get a federal court ruling on the issues.

Regarding antiPolygraph research, the problem as I see it with any polygraph research, is that the variables cannot be controlled sufficiently to make the research replicatable.  Without being able to replicate the research, it does not meet scientific scrutiny, and thus is subject to validity problems.  This is the main issue I have with the recent Honts study purporting to show that countermeasures do not help the guilty, and hurt the innocent.

When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up.  If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 5:17am:


Sir, with all due respect, I have already responded to the first part of your comment in a previous post. and I would prefer not to banter the same thing back and forth absent a new point of view, but since this is YOUR forum I wil respond: In your book the following text appears at or near the locations noted. 
But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION

Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER
I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM. 

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION Note  this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about

Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE  

You might argue that these questions may have nothing to do with what you consider the "relevant" issues on a test, but I assure you every person or entity who ever administered to you  any kind of test from kindergarten all the way to your Doctorate considers cheating on a test a relevant issue and if you had done so and were caught you would have failed most school have Honor Codes that provide for expulsion for such behavior. The text FROM YOUR BOOK encourages people to LIE about cheating on the exam and even provides sample lies for an examinee to use to avoid suspicion of cheating on an exam. There is no need to argue that you think that this type of lieing is justified. I fully understand that you have justified this type of lying or you would not have included it in your book. I just happen to disagree that this is acceptable behavior. Even if you think you are being lied to, what code of ethical behavior allows you to respond with lies or unethical behavior?

As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is” patently unfair"  With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.  By the way thank you for providing the following link so visitors to your site can read the ruling for themselves. http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/zaid/opinion-29-09-2006.pdf

If you thought that you could prove your second statement, why didn't you file a lawsuit following your polygraph? Your claims of lying and unfair treatment would certainly appear tortuous if proven.

Your statement that polygraph is “scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived” is a matter of opinion. This statement certainly doesn’t appear anywhere in the findings of the NAS study. 

On a side note:  If you would prefer to be addressed as Dr. Mashke rather than Mr. Mashke, please let me know. I have no reason to believe that your doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures is anything, but legitimate and correctly bestowed. If I have offended you by failing to refer to you with your proper title I apologize.

On another side note: I notice that in your personal statement about polygraph you are very careful not to talk about certain issues surrounding the nature of your employment with the government. How can  they control what you talk about after you no longer work for them?

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza,

When you wrote that I "co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information," I supposed that you meant that I've argued that it is OK to lie about relevant issues. My viewpoint has always been that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer the relevant questions truthfully. The advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to avoid admissions in response to post-test accusations of deception regarding relevant questions pre-supposes that such questions have been truthfully answered during the pre-test phase.

While government employment may not be a right, people have a natural right to be treated fairly by their government. It is patently unfair -- and downright immoral -- for government agencies to pretend to judge the honesty and integrity of applicants and employees on the basis of a scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived.

Sergeant  you wrote "What you are left with is the small percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.  That small percentage of cases can in no way be said to “bury” the number of cases where the results of a polygraph test were later proven to be incorrect by the same methods."

What in the world leads you to believe that the percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertable physical evidence is small? Good Grief most examiners probably have file cabinets full of them. 

How many of the childish "I failed my polygraph and I told the truth" rants on this website are supported by the credible confession of another party or incontroverable evidence of their innocence" This sites founder and co-author of TLBTLD does not even enjoy that distinction

Wait before you answer. For the sake of our discussion, I am more than willing to place any case that fullfills that criteria, whether or not they support polygraph, as data rather than anecdote if you are. 

Mr. Mashke  You wrote "We believe that it is not unethical for truthful persons—faced with a government that routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process—to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome."

Thank you Mr. Mashke for your personal response. If you were going prove my point by quoting , from your own book, a passage where you say that it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information why did you ask me to provide samples? 

In addition, employment with the government is not a right. The government may use pretty much any criteria for employment they choose as long as it does not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, national origin, race, religion or sex (gender). For certain jobs that includes a polygraph examination in whatever form it takes. 

No- one is compelled to take a pre-employment polygraph examination. They may freely choose to withdraw their application. If they actually believe that the government routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process why would they want to work for the government? 

If they choose to submit to pre-employment polygraph then they should consider themselves prohibited from attempting to manipulate the results of the test. Likewise if they are ordered to submit to a polygraph as part of an ongoing investigation by their employer, they do not have to take the test, they can resign.  If it is merely an internal investigation and they choose to submit to the examination they are required to cooperate fully and the fifth amendment against self incrimination does not apply per Garrity. If it is a criminal investigation they enjoy full constitutional protection.

Under your logic, should a Navy Fighter Pilot decide that the vision requirements or testing procedures aren't fair then he would be perfectly justified in attempting to manipulate the testing procedure so he could maintain flight status. 

"We believe that the ethically preferable choice for those facing polygraphic interrogation is to either refuse to submit or to use the “complete honesty” approach (or both)." 
Considering the amount of space you spend encouraging people to tell the truth versus the amount of space you devote to encouraging people to lie, teaching them how to lie and trying to absolve them of any guilt feelings they might have about lying by saying that it is justified, it is very clear that the above statement is simply a contradictory disclamer that enables you to say, in discussions like these"  Hey I told everybody to tell the truth. It would also help protect you from lawsuit by someone who uses your countermeasure techniques and fails in his attempt to conceal his/her involvment in a crime.

I fully understand that you don't have an "Ethical Problem" with deceiving polygraphers. You have absolved yourself with self justification. What I don't understand is your problem with my comment that you co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. considering the content of your latest post.  

SanchoPanza,

Thank you for your criticism. Our suggestions regarding countermeasures begin with the assumption that the examinee has answered the relevant questions truthfully. At p. 126 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we preface our discussion of polygraph countermeasures thus:

Quote:


The relevant questions being asked on the polygraph examination should have already been truthfully answered before the examinee sets foot in the polygraph suite. As I have often stated on these forums, I believe that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer relevant questions truthfully. This should be done up front, and this is a point that I think we'll be making more clearly in the next edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

But once the relevant questions have been answered truthfully, I see no ethical duty on the part of examinees to allow the polygrapher to turn the polygraph suite into a confessional booth.

Nor do I see an ethical problem with persons who have truthfully answered the relevant questions concealing their knowledge of polygraphy and possible use of countermeasures from the polygrapher, because the polygraph procedure is itself a fraud, and the examinee who admits to knowing the truth about polygraphy faces likely retaliation. Drew Richardson aptly summarized some of the key deceptions perpetrated by polygraphers in an earlier post:

Quote:

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 5:40pm:


How exactly would “Polygraph” anecdotally bury those people who claim they were done wrong with volumes and volumes of accurate and positive outcomes?

If a person passes a polygraph exam while lying or using countermeasures, do you believe they would then be willing to come forward and admit that they should have failed?  That hardly seems reasonable.  Therefore, whatever percentage of polygraph subjects who passed while lying or using countermeasures cannot be used to speak for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the polygraph.

If a person passes a polygraph while telling the truth, there is certainly a possibility that they will be willing to speak out in support of the polygraph.  Of course, it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of people who “passed” their polygraph and are willing to speak out in support of the polygraph’s accuracy were actually lying or using countermeasures, so whatever data you get from this group would have to be suspect.

If a person fails a polygraph exam while telling the truth, do you believe they are going to speak up in support of the polygraph?  I don’t think that is reasonable, either.  Therefore, whatever percentage of people are false-positives cannot be used to speak for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the polygraph.

If a person fails the polygraph while lying or attempting countermeasures, do you think it is likely that all such people will subsequently admit to lying or using countermeasures, and will do so in order to support the accuracy of the polygraph?  I hardly think that is likely.  It seems much more likely that a significant portion of subjects who fail while using CM’s or lying will continue to protest their innocence and would not be willing to speak out in favor of the polygraph.

What you are left with is the small percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.  That small percentage of cases can in no way be said to “bury” the number of cases where the results of a polygraph test were later proven to be incorrect by the same methods.

Quote:


George, you've got to be kidding.

Wow Sancho, that was beautiful!

p.s. George, we all slip up once in a while

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 6:03pm:


#1 you are probably correct
#2  I disagree. I find it hard to believe that the intent of the NAS was to criticize research that has not been done. 
#3 No money?  What are you doing with your donations and the proceeds from T-shirts and refrigerator magnets?

Lastly
What I actually said was you  co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information.
Here are a few examples: To satisfy the requirements of the word repeatedly I need only two, but I have included several. 

“Your goal during any interrogation is to avoid making damaging admissions or statements that may lead the polygrapher on to un-welcome lines of questioning.”  CONCEALING INFORMATION
(Last sentence  on page 131) 

“Be polite and cordial. Answer your polygrapher’s questions directly,
but remember to make no damaging admissions! In response to the “control” questions, you may admit to some minor childhood misdeeds. But in response to the relevant questions, you should make no admissions whatsoever. Any minor admissions you make regarding the relevant questions may be spun out of all proportion by your polygrapher.”
(Last paragraph age 133) CONCEALING INFORMATION


But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION


Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER

I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM. 

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION


Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE

MR. Mashke, I know you had your feelings hurt by failing to qualify for a security clearance but regardless of your intent, the techniques you teach are used by criminals to avoid the consequences of their actions. If just one child molester or murderer is able to escape justice because of something you teach, then the consequences of your actions are astronomically more detrimental to society than any inconvenience or embarrassment you may have suffered from your rejection.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 3:31am:


1) A study commissioned by an antipolygraph advocacy network would be of questionable independence, just as are studies commissioned by those with a vested interest in polygraphy (such as DoDPI/DACA);

2) No new studies are needed. The scientific underpinnings of polygraphic lie detection are weak, and the National Academy of Sciences reports that the "inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy." In plain English: you can't polish a turd;

3) No money.

Regarding your contention that I've written a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it's okay to lie, could you please cite a sample passage?

ecchasta wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 2:27pm:


If I were to agree with you, which I don't.  I believe the polygraph examiner did know whether or not Mr. Mashke was telling the truth. 

But even if I did agree with you that neither sarge or the polygrapher  know for sure whether or not he was lying I do have circumstantial evidence that Mr. Mashke condones not telling the truth.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that anyone who says that it is OK to lie and even publishes a book containing that philosophy may be a patently untruthful individual or in simple terms a liar.  

So, based on the evidence and information at hand. we know several pieces of information that allow one to draw a reasonable conclusion. 

#1Mr. Mashke states that he did not pass his polygraph. 
#2 He states that he did not lie. 
#3Mr. Mashke co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. 

On the other hand
#1 The examiner that  conducted Mr. Mashkes polygraph exam, SA Jack Trimarco, passed a pre-employment polygraph examination similar if not exactly like the one Mr. Mashke failed. 
#2. SA Trimarco rendered a professional opinion that Mr. Mashke was deceptive in his responses. 
#3. Mr. Tremarco did not author a book repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. In fact I have never read anywhere in any document that he has written where he has condoned lying or deliberately concealing information when one is the subject of a background or criminal investigation. 

It seems to me that deciding who to believe based on those comparisons shouldn't be that difficult.  Any one who tells the world that it's OK to lie shouldn't be offended when someone chooses to take them at their word and brand them as someone who lies. Face it, when you tell people you believe in lying, your credibility will suffer. 

Have polygraph errors been made?  Absolutely. Any scientific test has an error rate. But the fact that errors occur occasionally does not, in and of itself,  mean that the process is not a valid one. 

There is NO evidence that an error or mistake was made in Mr. Mashkes case other than the word of a man who says lying is OK. If one foolishly accepts that it's OK to lie as long as you can be justified in their own mind, one might also conclude that it was OK to lie about drug use going into an examination, if in their own mind they could justify the lie by convincing himself that their prior drug activity was or should be inconsequential to the nature of the inquiry. 

This site seems to want to use the complaints of those who claim," I failed my test and I told the truth." in combination with a few probable errors an attempt to mislead the public into thinking they are the same thing. They are not. 

If I may reiterate my initial post This website bases almost all of its conclusions and theories on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. If that were true, Polygraph could anecdotally bury those people who claim they were done wrong with volumes and volumes of accurate and positive outcomes. 

Sancho Panza

Oh, one other thing...  Sancho, you're right that Sarge doesn't know whether or not George lied.  But neither did the polygrapher.

The original topic of this thread was a challenge to skeptics to prove thatr polygraphy CAN'T detect lies.  It is not their job to do so.  It is the job of objective researchers to determine its validity and accuracy.  I have never been polygraphed, nor do I know anyone who has been.  My interest in this subject followed a Dr. Phil child molester/lie detector episode and I simply wanted to review the scientific research on lie detection.  I have seen nothing credible in support of lie detection, whether it be polygraphy, voice, chemical, or whatever.  It seem that even a confession can't be trusted if the interrogators place the right pressure on the right subject.  All I've heard in support of polygraphic lie detection is purely anecdotal.

Sergeant, your comment "He did that after he told the truth on his polygraph and failed"    is an unsupported assumption on your part. You have no evidence that he told the truth on his polygraph other than him telling you that he told the truth, a somewhat circular fallacy. If he is a liar then any statement he makes is suspect. 

In support of my contention, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that anyone who says that it is OK to lie and even publishes a book containing that philosophy may be a patently untruthful individual or in simple terms a liar.  At least you agree that he did co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information

As to what you would like to see, Look it up yourself. I did not say he was violating the law and the inference is yours not mine. I refuse to be baited into that argument because his occasional disclaimer and careful choice of words would appear to provide an escape argument or plausible deniability from the application of the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. 

As to the comparison to the NAMBLA site, If you haven't been to the site, how do you know the organization is despicable? My career has often taken me places I would never have gone by choice. Never the less the only real difference between the two sites is the subject matter.
Arguendo, ( a bit of pointless latin)The similarities I see are:
#1 The subject matter of both sites addresses a controversial issue.
#2 Both sites offer justification for unethical or immoral behavior
#3 Both sites proffer scientific studies in support of their positions
#4 Both sites offer tactics that purport to allow persons to avoid the consequences of their unethical or immoral behavior. 
Under the above terms it is a fair a reasonable comparison. 

My position is that it is prima facie (more pointless Latin) to conclude that the authors of both sites engage in or endorse the behavior they proselytize. I did not compare Mr. Mashke to a child molester. I have absolutely no information regarding his personal habits other than he thinks it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as long as HE thinks it is justified while representing himself as some sort of Pontifex Maximus Veritate instead of Pontifex Maximus Fraudatio. (Even more pointless Latin) Funny, it doesn't make ME feel superior. 

Sancho Panza