T.M. Cullen wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:19pm:


Hey TC, Glad to hear it and I will assume you don't need to go on an anti-pantie site to defend your livelyhood LOL

Not guilty,

Probably just another polygrapher who doesn't like hearing the truth, and, as you said, with nothing constructive to contribute, or anything substantive to respond with.

So he posts a personal attack.  We see this here all the time. 

As for moving on.  I am now in the lingerie business.  You now panties, thongs...etc.  It has been very lucrative for me.  Last week alone I pulled down about 2000!

TC

Quote:


It's funny how someone can come on here and trash TM Cullen while not participating in any constrctive way.
Mr. Cullen is passionate about his Polygraph experience as am I and many others. This is about shining a light on an in accurate and un- scientific process that is illegal in for most applications and has somehow survived in fed employment and criminal investigations (though in the later it holds little to no weight) ultimatly labeling people as liers when they may not be. 
I don't think this is whinning but a fight that people like us that have been wrongfully labeled need to fight. 
We must be on to something because this site is VERY successfull and there are many examiners that make it their business to come here daily to try to shore up thier scam and income from it.
I am sure that Mr. Cullen has moved on profesionally and has a rewarding job in spite of his false positive. I am sure his involvement here is to further education to those that seek the truth in the Polygraph lie.

How exactly is it treason for a person to warn the troops not to rely on an unreliable detector of deception?

Do you honestly believe that if this web site did not exist then no one on the planet would have access to information on countermeasures?  That's ridiculous.

All George did was point on that the troops should not rely on something that is inaccurate to begin with, and that can also be easily defeated or confounded by anyone with access to either the internet or a public library.

Would it be better for the troops to use the port-a-poly and believe that anyone who passes must be innocent of any terrorist activities?  Is that helping the troops?

     Lethe,

   You fail to recognized the obvious !!!  G.M. is a former career Intel Officer of 20 years, and knowingly tried to undermine & interfere with the chain of command structure in a time of war.  Opinions aside, he tried to tell our troops not to trust their superiors in the equipment they were given.  We have a democracy which places those Officers over those men, as he well knows, and in trying to undermine that no matter what the issue, is sedition which is a close cousin to treason.  He gets what he gets; either from authorities overtly, or otherwise as it all unfolds.  I doubt even you in expression of your opinions here would have crossed that line as he did, especially if you were a vet who had served in a war zone.  Don't confuse debating a point to death with real world consequences which must be accounted for; and there will be an accounting I think for all extremists.

     T.M.,

  Honestly, you are all over this board and your obsession oozes out to where even the occasional reader on this board would assume that it may have in fact been your psychological, rather than your polygraph, which kept you from obtaining your goals.  Plain and Simple, you just may have not measured up above and beyond your polygraph as in what you write is so negative and vile that I wonder how you get through the day.  Maybe your better off as an Amway distributor or something, rather than bringing your crap attitudes into government.  Tone it down, take a Dale Carnegie course, and maybe go out and find a job which can live with YOU !!!  I don't know what that job is, but it's not in an environment where others need to stay positive and focussed like the Feds as an Intelligence type.  What other professions have you considered or applied for ?  Your perpetutation of your claimed victimization is getting thin, as you have NOT moved on and are still obsessing here.  Spare US !!!! Your about as depressing to read as a bill from a funeral parlor salesman. 

Alpha 11 / New Mexico

Quote:


Okay, so your argument is that George is attempting to give aid and comfort to the enemy.  That is, the main purpose of his two acts (saying the PCASS is not accurate and that it can be beaten by such-and-such a method) is to help the enemy.  I don't think that claim withstands any scrutiny.

Examining all of George's actions, I don't think you could come to any conclusion other than that George is motivated by a desire to end the widespread use of the polygraph as it is now used.  As he advocates doing this through purely legal, non-violent means, his pursuit of this goal is perfectly legal and protected by the first amendment.  I think it'd even be reasonable to say that George thinks that, far from hurting U.S. security and interests, eliminating the dependence on the polygraph as it is now used would enhance U.S. security.   

Now, you can absolutely argue those two points and say that the way the polygraph is now used is great and must be continued and that changing it at all would damage U.S. security.  But I see no evidence whatsoever that George wants to do anything that he believes would hurt America and/or help terrorists.  So, you can say that the effect of his actions would be to hurt the U.S., but you can't say (unless you have an argument that hasn't occurred to me, in which case please share it) that that is his intent.

Basically, you can argue that an act is immoral either because of (1) the effect of that act or (2) the motives behind the act.  So far as the PCASS is concerned, you can't argue that George's actions will be harmful unless you admit that he is right about how inaccurate it is and/or how easy it is to beat.  And I don't see how you can argue that his motive is to hurt the United States and/or help terrorists.  But if you want to try, please do so.

Also, you say that he has "translat[ed] CM's into the language of the enemy."  Perhaps you are referring to the Al Qaeda manual that George translated from "the language of the enemy" into English?  If so, you need to be careful not to base your arguments on inaccurate information.  If not, I'd appreciate knowing what you are referring to.

Quote:


Another feeble attempt by an anonymous coward to slander GM.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

     Hi,

  The answer to your question is simple in that under the law   ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not.  Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA.  Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line.  He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors.  Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!     It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.

I still don't see how polygraphers can accuse George of treason while still being consistent with their other statements.  It seems to me that they are making two sets of statements and that it is not possible for both to be true at the same time.

(1) The PCASS is (a) highly accurate and (b) very difficult, if not practically impossible, to beat.  AND
(2) George is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by saying that (a) the PCASS is not accurate and (b) it can be beaten relatively easily by doing such-and-such

Now, if (1)(a) is true, that it is very accurate, how is it treason to falsely say that it is not accurate?  That's not giving aid to the enemy, though it might give them some false comfort--until they find out just how accurate it really is.  I could elaborate on this, but I think it's pretty obvious that that would not rise to the level of treason.  It'd be a much greater encouragement to insurgents to think that our military will pull out of the country shortly, but people who advocate a quick withdraw aren't traitors.

And if statement (1)(b) is true, that the PCASS can't be easily defeated, then the information that George is providing is not aiding the enemy since the information is invalid.  Maybe it might encourage them to think they can defeat the great satan's silly toys, but following the information, if it is false--as you claim it is--will hinder, not help them.

I don't see how it is possible to say that George is committing treason under any reasonable definition of the term (and if a definition would make a large percentage of the American population traitors it is almost certainly not reasonable) unless the information he is providing and disseminating about (a) the accuracy of the PCASS and/or (b) it's ability to be defeated, in general, and in particular by the methods he also provides.

Am I going wrong someplace?  Can someone explain how he is giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy if his claims about PCASS accuracy and susceptibility are false?

Quote:


As I mentioned in another thread about the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System,  I am deeply concerned that a red light on the Port-A-Poly could become a green light for "enhanced interrogation techniques," the U.S. Government's euphemism for torture.

I don't know whether the PCASS is actually being used in the field, but I have yet to see any indication that it has been shelved. As mentioned on the blog, the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA) sent an instructor to Afghanistan in late April of this year to train soldiers in the use of the PCASS. That instructor (James Waller) seems himself to be deeply deluded about the PCASS's capabilities, telling a reporter, "Red means the subject was dishonest and lying to the security questions; green means they passed the test; yellow means the device did not get enough information to make a call so we need to rerun the test."

No reliance of any kind should be made on the color-coded blinkings of DACA's "traffic light of truth."

Quote:


Arabs being wrongly convicted of what?  As I understand it, the use of PCASS is to determine who the US military was to give (more) belief and trust to; not as a means of convicting anyone of anything. Iraq/Afghanistan has not given up their autonomy and we are not an occupying colonialist power.

I do appreciate the fact you do not see us as blood soaked death dealers.  I guess that is a step up from what some have called us...

Sackett

I'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused. 
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.

Polygraphers don't give a damn about ruining people's lives; why would they give a damn about ending people's lives with their grandiose claims?  They make more money the more people believe that the polygraph is as awesome as they say.  So what if a bunch of people in the army (probably not good enough to be real polygraphers!) get killed?

Polygrapher math:  Other people dying + money for you = a great deal! (Just be sure to cloak yourself in self righteousness)

Twoblock,

While a good many polygraphers do regularly visit AntiPolygraph.org, the unusually large number of views associated some message threads is typically the result of their having been linked to on other websites. For example, the thread about PCASS's vulnerability to countermeasures is presently linked to at Cryptome.org.

twoblock,

90% of the people on this board are polygraph examiners....duh?!

Sackett

Hmmmmm. Anyone notice how many hits an "attempt to trash George" thread brings? Anyone think at least 90% of those hits are polygraphers? Anyone think, when these threads appear, the poster sends out a net APB directed to his brethern and sistern saying "Check out anti-poly site. I just trashed George" ?Hmmmmmmm !! ??

I think they are basically putting economics (their industry) before security (how ironic) and the safety of the troops.

TC

What George essentially did was warn the troops using this equipment that it is not accurate and that they should not rely upon it.  It is too easily defeated by countermeasures, and even without countermeasures it is not accurate or reliable.

If the military had been issued mine detectors that didn’t work, or that worked sixty percent of the time, would George be acting in a treasonous manner by warning service members not to rely on their new mine detectors?

It sounds like the pro-polygraph people are trying to claim it would be better if the U.S. military could have operated under the assumption that none of their enemies were capable of successfully defeating the handheld polygraph.

Now that the service members know how easy it is for the enemy to defeat the handheld polygraph, are those service members in a better or worse position?  Now that they know a terrorist could plant a bomb and then easily pass the “lie detector” test, are they likely to be safer or in more dire jeopardy?  

The information George posted is not classified, and is freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it.  It is ridiculous to assume that were it not for this web site no one on the planet would have any idea that polygraph countermeasures exist, must less be able to read anything about how to use them.

If a soldier on the ground in Iraq, puzzled because he or she was getting results from their “lie detector” that flew in the face of reason and logic, had done a little research and then posted the exact same information on the Internet, does anyone believe that soldier would be accused of treason?  Would a soldier warning others how easy it is for anyone to defeat the “lie detector” so that no one puts their lives or anyone else’s lives in danger through reliance on a test that can be so easily defeated or confounded be considered as working against U.S. interests?  I think not.

Suppose the Department of Defense issued instructions to question a terrorist and then watch their eyes when they answered, because if they look to the right you will know they are constructing a lie.  If someone like George posted that anyone aware of that technique can easily control his or her reaction and render the test worthless, therefore the test should not be relied upon, would he be acting irresponsibly then?  Would he be committing treason by warning service members not to rely on the results of such an easily defeated test?  Again, I think not.

T.M.,

I think "port-a-poly" is a very apt nickname for the "Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System!"

Quote:
 

So put up or shut up.  Make a call to the FBI, let them investigate.  Then I am sure GM will let us in on the final outcome.

Is there any reason to believe that FBI agents have any more faith in the polygraph then us False-positive have?  They are probably more aware than any of us of the unreliability of the test, and wouldn't take the results of some "Port-a-poly (potty?)" on a suspected terrorist anyway!

nonombre wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 7:06pm:


Calling me a "Maschke minion" does absolutely nothing to further the credibility of your argument.  You'll notice that I didn't bother calling you a "polygraph putz."  Could you explain why you find that sort of behavior necessary?

Quote:


"The enemy" has had the information published in Mawsu'at al-jihad since before 2002, when a copy was acquired and translated.  I would imagine that there are as many copies of that floating around the terrorist world as there are copies of Southern Living on Georgia coffee tables.  In other words, the cat is not only out of the bag, he's lived a long, happy, post-bag life and died of old age.  That's what makes it relevant.

Your argument would seem to be that if we convince ourselves that "the enemy" doesn't know what the PCASS is, it must be so whether it is or not.  That's not what I'd call a winning strategy.  A good interrogator is mindful that his subject may very well know what the device is and isn't revealing that fact.  Of course, if the device were able tell if a subject were lying with perfect certainty, that issue could be resolved very quickly and the remainder of the interrogation would be a breeze.

Quote:


Of course.  The foot soldiers get given one mission, and if they return they may get another one.  Good operational security practice would dictate that they be sufficiently insulated from those planning their activities.  We don't send our generals out to kick in doors in Basrah, why should they?  Those that are the "best and brightest" are the ones who end up in a position to know something of real value.  They've read the manual and are intelligent enough to realize that something that someone says can tell if they're lying probably can't.  I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed never got anywhere near a lie detector when he was interrogated.  Why do you think that might be?

Quote:


"The enemy" was about to be faced with a variation on a device they'd seen before.  The only way an interrogator can make good use of a lie detector is if the subject believes it actually works, and the only way to do that is to say "this device can tell me if you're lying."

Quote:


The advantage the PCASS has over some other equipment is that it's compact and can be deployed en masse.  Unfortunately, doing so solves the dissemination problem because the process of making a decision about it happens multiple times in parallel over multiple, smaller areas.  These guys aren't out preparing PowerPoint presentations for their Tuesday Jihad intelligence briefing, they're bringing back news of what they encountered for those directing their actions to sort out.  You're thinking like someone who's part of a large, bureaucratic intelligence organization.

Quote:


George is, to the best of my knowledge still an American citizen.  (George, please correct me if I'm wrong.)  I am reasonably confident that if the United States thought it had a sufficient case of treason, he would be no more safely holed up in Holland than Cleveland.  If he has committed crimes as heinous as you describe, I fail to understand why you, as a patriotic American, are wasting valuable time here on this message board and aren't spending every spare moment making sure the government brings this insufferable cur to justice.

This story was given wide exposure by the American news media with nary a mention of the discussion on this site.  How come you're not calling for Brian Williams' head on a pike?

Quote:


Allow me to draw a parallel from cryptography, a field with real science behind it:  if the algorithm is secure, disclosure poses no threat.  If this device actually worked reliably, it wouldn't matter if ads for it were plastered on every billboard in Baghdad.  The emperor may have clothes, but they could very well be limited to a pair of skimpy undies.

Quote:


Since we're busy hurling unrelated insults, your grammar blows chunks.  You're using the word "polygraph" as if it were a proper noun.  It's not, and use of a non-proper noun requires an article beforehand.  The only people I've ever heard refer to the polygraph without an article are people who are polygraphers or are otherwise connected to the field of lie detection.  I must conclude that you are one of those people.  Am I correct?

Quote:


Please come back after you've finished.  Your auntie finds you amusing.

--Auntie

P.S.:  I'd also like to add that for those who claim what is being discussed here constitutes "intelligence information" are perhaps barking up the wrong tree.  The government does something special with intelligence information (which, by the way actually has a legal definition):  they classify it.  Is there classified material posted anywhere on this site?

nopolycop wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 8:50pm:


C'mon, I would like to believe you aren't THAT stupid.  I have no doubt you are fully aware the act of treason in this case, is not in any opinion voiced by George or anyone else.  It is in the collection, analysis, production, and deliberate dissemination of U.S. intelligence information by Mr. Maschke to a website he himself has stated is frequently read by the enemies of our country...  Remember, Mr. Maschke is (or was) by trade an intelligence officer.  He knows by now the gravity of what he has done.  As I said before, contrary to George's ravings, this is not about our soldiers, police applicants, or even child molesters.  It is about only one thing.  George Maschke's eternal bruised ego.

Good night...

skip.webb wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 6:06pm:


Mr. Webb.

Assuming for a moment that what you said above is true, since when is stating an opinion an act of treason?

Rahn

You are new here so you have to understand that ploygraphers can't/won't debate the "technical" aspects of their machine (can't give away their secrets) so they receive TDO's to come on here and attempt to trash George. Evident in this thread. They are not intelligent enough to realize they are trashing themselves. They are on here during working hours, probably using computers funded by our taxes, bullholing our money and our crooked poluted-crats in D.C. won't do anything about it because they are doing the same thing.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the feds thought George was aiding the enemy, in any way, they would be on him like stink on shit no matter what country he's in. This website has been up, I believe, over eight years.