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: Oct 31st, 2008 at 6:10pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
For more on the alleged plot to assassinate U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, see RawStory.com reporter Brad Jacobson's article, "Legal experts question US Attorney's decision not to prosecute Obama 'assassination plot'." The matter of the polygraph "tests" administered to Nathan Johnson and Shawn Adolf is not, however, mentioned:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_experts_question_Colorado_US_Attorneys_1031....
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 3:28pm
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 6th, 2008 at 2:10pm:
Why should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?

Quote:
"Deceptions for the average examiner would include..."
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility. 
If it were probable why didn't he say so? 
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so?
 OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?


Sancho Panza,

I cannot presume to speak for Dr. Richardson, but I think it's reasonably clear from the context of his remarks that the examiner deceptions associated with polygraphic lie tests that he enumerates are commonplace.

To the extent that Dr. Richardson may agree that there is a legitimate role for the use of polygraphs in criminal investigations, I think you'd find such a role constrained to concealed information tests, although based on past discussions I think that he'd agree -- as I do -- that admissions/confessions obtained in the course of traditional lie "tests" (such as the CQT or I&R techniques) may have probative value to the extent that they can be independently corroborated.

Quote:
Also, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?


No. And to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Zelicoff has not submitted this article to any journal for publication, either. However, he has had his statistical analysis reviewed by a well qualified statistician. Again, if you have any substantive disagreement with his analysis, please feel free to explain.

Quote:
Do you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?


That polygraph testing doesn't work is already about as well established as it could possibly be. There's no raging debate amongst scientists. The only ones claiming 90+ percentile accuracy rates for polygraphy are those with vested interests in this pseudoscience.
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 2:10pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Why should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?

Quote:
"Deceptions for the average examiner would include..."
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility. 
If it were probable why didn't he say so? 
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so?
 OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?



Also, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?

Do you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?

Sancho Panza
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 1:19pm
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:05pm:
Quote:
Deceptions for the average examiner would include
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility. 
If it were probable why didn't he say so? 
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so?   OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?


Sancho Panza,

You're being argumentative. That polygraphic lie detection tests involve examiner deception is a well-documented fact -- a fact documented by the polygraph literature itself (which again is explained at length in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector). Your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact betrays a lack of intellectual honesty.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain how to administer a probable-lie control question test (CQT) without lying to or otherwise deceiving the examinee.

Quote:
I see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.


Dr. Zelicoff is well qualified to discuss the statistical analysis he presents in his paper, "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies." If you have any substantive disagreement with his conclusions, please feel free to explain.

Quote:
You're trying to make me laugh aren't you?


No. I'm trying to make you think.
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:05pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Deceptions for the average examiner would include
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility. 
If it were probable why didn't he say so? 
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so?   OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?

I see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.   

You're trying to make me laugh aren't you?

Sancho Panza
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 7:47am
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:41am:
Notguilty1

Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as  #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy. 

You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy.  Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.


Get real! Polygraph "testing" is fundamentally dependent upon the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested" (and the naivety and gullibility of the latter). It's no stretch to say that polygraphers lie. As Dr. Richardson pointed out in an earlier thread:

Quote:
...Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.

(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…


The deceptions involved in polygraph "testing" are also outlined, using primary source materials, in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

The polygraph community's claim that polygraphy has a 98% (or thereabouts) accuracy rate doesn't pass the giggle test. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis to begin with. Not surprisingly, it hasn't been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably operate at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. On the contrary as Dr. Alan Zelicoff has shown, the polygraph community's best field studies suggest that under field conditions, a truthful person has roughly a 50-50 chance of failing a polygraph.
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 1:48am
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:41am:
Notguilty1

Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as  #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy. 

You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy.  Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.

By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.

Sancho Panza


Sancho,
I will pass on responding in like to your personal assaults.
The only reason that my claim is "unsupported" in my persoanl case, is because Poligraphers like mine a former police officer mind you, tells his lies behind close doors and "off the record" but I am not the only one reporting that this claim has been made. There is ample public claims by the Polygraph industry that these are the accuracy rates.
Besides I have all the "proof" I need.
I took the test, told the truth and failed. I was told that the machine is 95-98% accurate and it detects deception. 
THESE ARE ALL LIES!!

If they are not, I would love to have you direct me to the proven scientific literature that substantiates the accuracy claims and the claim that Polygraph detects deception.
THERE ARE NONE!
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:41am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Notguilty1

Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as  #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy. 

You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy.  Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.

By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.

Sancho Panza
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Sep 5th, 2008 at 10:45pm
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 5th, 2008 at 8:44pm:
Lethe Wrote
Quote:
SanchoPanza is a hypocrite.  He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph


Lethe,   Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up. 

Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization. 

But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
 
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.

Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.

Sancho Panza



Hey Sancho Panza welcome back! Was wondering where you've been.

Let me ask. So it is your opinion that it is OK for Poligraphers to lie like telling people that Polygraph is 98% accurate when they know that it is a lie? 
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Sep 5th, 2008 at 8:44pm
  Mark & Quote
Lethe Wrote
Quote:
SanchoPanza is a hypocrite.  He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph


Lethe,   Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up. 

Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization. 

But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
 
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.

Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.

Sancho Panza
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2008 at 8:58pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
David Neiwert, managing editor of the left-leaning blog, FireDogLake.com, writes that the FBI wanted more serious charges filed against the alleged Obama assassination plotters. See FBI Wanted Obama Plotters Charged, But A Rove Appointee Said No.
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Sep 4th, 2008 at 8:32pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
In addition to many other things that he is, SanchoPanza is a hypocrite.  He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph but SanchoPanza knows that (1) one is supposed to lie on the polygraph; (2) Former APA President Skip Webb said that a person who refused to lie would be considered to be refusing the polygraph; and, most importantly, (3) most of the instructions that Polygraphers give to subjects are deliberate lies.

So, lying is good when SanchoPanza and Co. do it, but bad when others do it.  This is hypocrisy and special pleading.  Could we expect anything else?

BTW, I'm glad to see that some polygraphers are joining us again here!  I thought I'd scarred all of you off.
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Sep 1st, 2008 at 4:36pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
polytek wrote on Sep 1st, 2008 at 3:20pm:
SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30th, 2008 at 2:37pm:
Notguilty1  Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza


Huh ?
Still trying to decipher the above..
Anyone else got a clue ?


I can explain. Watch any shell game operator and you'll understand, cleaver yes, but informed educated people can see past the scam.

Posted by: polytek
Posted on: Sep 1st, 2008 at 3:20pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30th, 2008 at 2:37pm:
Notguilty1  Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza


Huh ?
Still trying to decipher the above..
Anyone else got a clue ?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 1st, 2008 at 11:39am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sergeant1107,

I'd be interested if SanchoPanza (or anyone else who shares his viewpoint) would be so kind as to provide citations and abstracts for, say, just five scientific articles that he believes were improperly excluded from consideration by the National Research Counsel's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Sep 1st, 2008 at 10:39am
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 31st, 2008 at 2:15am:
Well Sergeant I never claimed to be a mathematician but 57 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 5.7% and 80 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 8.0 %.  But if 8.0 minus 5.7 doesn't equal 2.3 then my Wal-Mart calculator must be broken.  But if it does then 5.7% plus 2.3% equals 8.0%

I tell you what if you have Microsoft excel open up a new worksheet and format column A as a percentage with one decimal place. Then format column B as a percentage with one decimal place. Then do column C the same way
in Cell A1 enter 8.0 and in B1 enter 5.7 
    
Now in C-1 type the following  =(A1-B1) and hit enter and you will get your answer without having to go through all that figuring out which buttons to push.   

If you want to play math games 80 is actually 140% of the number 57.. Gotta remember slide that decimal 2 places with percentages.      So if we're using your numbers APA used 140% of the studies used by NAS. But then I'm not a mathematician

APA has 80 studies available on their WEB Site. There is nothing there that said they only used 80 in their validity and reliability studies. 

Sancho Panza

You are absolutely right.  I did not slide the decimal point.  Mea culpa.

I think the APA would have a bit more credibility if, after denigrating the NAS for "only" using 57 studies out of the more than 1000 available, they had used a far greater percentage of those studies themselves in trying to establish the accuracy of the polygraph.

To imply that a research study which only used 57 of the more than 1000 studies availabe is somehow inadequate or biased and then to use only 80 themselves is ridiculous.  I'm sure you can see that, though I'm equally as sure you will not admit to it.
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2008 at 12:04pm
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Many here have alleged you are really Skip Webb, past president of the APA.
 
If they have alleged that, they certainly aren't doing it in open postings.
That's funny. Do you guys really send email back and forth to each other trying to figure out the identity posters on this board?   Are you also trying to coordinate your responses?  Don't make me laugh out-freaking-loud.

Mr. Cullen at the top of this page it says:
Quote:
If you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified
I infer from that statememnt that the administrator of this forum is inviting posters to remain anonymous.

Is it only liars, child molestors, terrorists, and thieves are invited to remain anonymous on this web site or is that extended to everyone?

My reasons for remaining anonymous are my own, and frankly they aren't any of your business.

It is unlikely that you would ever deduce my identity because of your assumptions about what I do.

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that someone who has taken a polygraph test and passed would defend it when you failed one and decided to attack it?  

Instead you concoct this conspiracy theory that polygraph examiners are allied against you, waging some type of clandestine guerilla action against you.   

When you tested for NSA, what was your paranoia scale on your psychological evaluation? Seriously there could be another reason you didn't get the job. 

What are you doing for a living today? Custodial Maintenance? McJob? Sanitation Worker? Rug Doctor?,La Crosse coach? Disgruntled Boy Scout working on his curmudgeon merit badge?  Did I get close?

Never mind. It doesn't really matter


Sanch Panza
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2008 at 3:27am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Many here have alleged you are really Skip Webb, past president of the APA.  You might as well be.   

If you are Mr. Webb, can I ask, are you the past president of the APA with the "phoney" doctorate?  Or was that somebody else?

TC
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2008 at 2:29am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Mr. Cullen.  It is very telling that you would select John Houseman an actor who knew nothing about law, to support your position,  considering that you know nothing about polygraph and apparently very little about anything else.   

In other words you are like a Frog at the bottom of a well, Your view of the sky is severely limited.

When you failed your polygraph,  was it really for a job with the NSA or was it to keep your job that involved wearing a paper hat?

Sancho Panza

P.S. My name is not now, nor has it ever been Skip Webb and as far as I know, you are the only person who has ever called me that. 
SP
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2008 at 2:15am
  Mark & Quote
Well Sergeant I never claimed to be a mathematician but 57 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 5.7% and 80 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 8.0 %.  But if 8.0 minus 5.7 doesn't equal 2.3 then my Wal-Mart calculator must be broken.  But if it does then 5.7% plus 2.3% equals 8.0%

I tell you what if you have Microsoft excel open up a new worksheet and format column A as a percentage with one decimal place. Then format column B as a percentage with one decimal place. Then do column C the same way
in Cell A1 enter 8.0 and in B1 enter 5.7 
      
Now in C-1 type the following  =(A1-B1) and hit enter and you will get your answer without having to go through all that figuring out which buttons to push.   

If you want to play math games 80 is actually 140% of the number 57.. Gotta remember slide that decimal 2 places with percentages.      So if we're using your numbers APA used 140% of the studies used by NAS. But then I'm not a mathematician

APA has 80 studies available on their WEB Site. There is nothing there that said they only used 80 in their validity and reliability studies. 

Sancho Panza
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2008 at 1:32am
  Mark & QuoteQuote


Quote:
Dr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?


But you persistently ignore the FACTS Mr. Webb.  What are the FACTS!  This is the first step necessary to become a true scholar!  Ascertain the FACTS.  A step you apparently think doesn't apply to you.  You even distort the facts.  This makes you neither a scholar nor a gentleman.  Good day Mr. Webb!

Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2008 at 11:35pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30th, 2008 at 8:26pm:
Sergeant Then I guess you must concede that while less than exhaustive it would be approximately 2.3% more thorough.

Sancho Panza

Actually, using 80 studies instead of 57 is roughly 1.4% "more thorough", not 2.3%.

And your lack of substantive answer is sufficient answer in and of itself.  There is obviously no clear advantage in "thoroughness" or anything else when one uses 80 studies rather than 57 studies out of the more than one thousand that are available.  It is a matter of degree, and, in this case, a very small degree.

I think it is clearly ridiculous for the APA to decry the NAS research study as inadequate because it "only" used 57 studies and for the same APA to then use a "whopping" 80 studies to bolster their own claims that the polygraph is highly accurate.
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2008 at 8:26pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sergeant Then I guess you must concede that while less than exhaustive it would be approximately 2.3% more thorough.

Sancho Panza
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2008 at 8:22pm
  Mark & Quote
quote author=7B59534E5B5963715D4F5F5457593C0 link=1219760564/45#49 date=1220113729]SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30th, 2008 at 2:18pm:
Dr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?


Sullivan's statement that Ames beat the polygraph is not contradicted but rather confirmed by the CIA Inspector General's report, the unclassified summary of which states regarding his 1986 polygraph:

Quote:
1986 Polygraph Examination:

At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.

Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.

Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."

Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.

According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.


The IG report also indicates that Ames also passed his 1991 polygraph:

Quote:
1991 Polygraph:

The derogatory information developed during Ames's background investigation also was not provided to the polygraph examiner before Ames's polygraph. The background investigation results were forwarded to the Office of Security on April 12, 1991, the same day that Ames was given his polygraph examination. According to polygraph officials, there was no requirement that background investigation information be made available to polygraphers prior to an examination.

The polygraph supervisor and the examiner were aware that there was some question about Ames's unexplained wealth, but neither recalls actually seeing the December 5, 1990 memorandum from the CIC or having the information in the memo specifically discussed with them. The polygraphers stated that they conducted a routine polygraph examination of Ames, and did not focus on financial questions other than those routinely asked of all employees during an update polygraph.

As is normal procedure, the polygrapher interviewed Ames prior to beginning the polygraph, and at that time Ames volunteered some information on his finances. He said he had money that came principally from his mother-in-law, that he owned property in Colombia, and that he had made several small, but lucrative, investments. Once the polygraph test began he was asked whether he was concealing any financial difficulties from the Agency. To this question Ames answered no, showing no signs of deception. According to CIA officials, the examiner did not ask questions during the polygraph test about the specific examples of Ames's unexplained affluence because they considered this a routine polygraph and were not advised to do any specialized questioning. CIC officials stated that they wanted Ames's polygraph to appear in every way to be routine so as not to tip Ames off to any specific concern in this area.   {AMES WAS NOT HAVING ANY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, HE HAD PLENTY OF MONEY THE INVESTIGATORS KNEW THAT AND DIDN'T TELL THE EXAMINER}
According to the CIA IG interviews of Ames, "Ames states that if the Agency had interviewed him about his spending in the context of a reinvestigation, he would not have been terribly alarmed. In fact, he prepared himself for the possibility that he would be asked about his finances. Ames attempted to account for the cash purchase of his Arlington home by having a gift letter prepared and notarized making it appear to have been a gift from his mother in law. He states that at some point someone would learn that he had purchased the house for cash and it was reasonable to expect that someone would ask him about the source of his wealth. But no one ever did."

Ames also showed no reaction when he was asked whether he was working for a foreign intelligence service. Deception was indicated, however, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, Ames continued to show deception in response to the question. The examiner, as was standard CIA practice, ended the test, called it incomplete, and asked Ames to return again in a few days to try to successfully complete the test.

Four days later Ames returned to finish the polygraph examination. On that day, with a different polygrapher, Ames answered all questions without any deceptive response, including the question regarding unreported contacts with a foreign national. The reaction that had occurred on the previous test was not present, according to the examiner. In fact, the examiner noted that Ames's overall level of responsiveness was down considerably from the prior test. No additional polygraph questions were asked about Ames's finances. The polygrapher concluded the test, dismissed Ames and wrote the polygraph report indicating Ames had passed the test. However, in file notes, the first examiner commented, "I don't think he is a spy, but I am not 100% convinced because of the money situation." CIA officials have recently stated that, in retrospect, the security background check on Ames should have preceded the polygraph and the polygraph examination should have been conducted after taking the results of the investigation into account.

Ames told the CIA IG investigators that he accepted his reinvestigation in 1991 as routine since he was aware that the five-year reinvestigation program "had taken hold." However, he had expected that the 1991 reinvestigation would be more direct and pointed than his 1986 test. Ames maintained that his passing the 1986 polygraph was very important to him because it gave him confidence and reduced his anxiety. Ames was still apprehensive, however, because he viewed the polygraph as "rolling the dice and so I felt that it was perfectly possible that even if I were telling the truth instead of lying I might have problems." Ames said he never received training from the KGB on how to beat the polygraph. He acknowledges, however, that the KGB advised him to "just relax, don't worry, you have nothing to fear."

In its review of the Ames polygraphs, the CIA IG report quotes several current and former polygraph examiners who stated that the Ames case should not be considered to be a polygraph "chart interpretation" problem. Rather, they say, the fundamental problem is that the 1986 and 1991 polygraph charts were invalid because the examiner in each case failed to establish a proper psychological atmosphere in the examination sessions. A former polygrapher noted that without proper preparation, a subject has no fear of detection and, without fear of detection, the subject will not necessarily demonstrate the proper physiological response. Consequently, they surmise, the Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.

The fact that Ames passed his 1991 polygraph caused the CIC investigative team to be less suspicious of him....


Clearly, Ames passed both his 1986 and 1991 CIA polygraph tests. You were mistaken when you stated he did not.

You also write:

Quote:
I see nothing in your CV (Isn't your PHD in Near Eastern Studies) that would indicate that you are qualified to assess the rigor of a scientific study.
The NAS didn't even LOOK at them. 

If you aren't qualified and they didn't look, neither of you are in a position to comment authoritatively on their value or lack of value


A good preliminary yardstick for assessing the rigor of a study is whether it passed the muster of peer review in a refereed scientific journal. The great majority of the American Polygraph Association's "more than 1,000 research studies available" don't meet this basic threshold. [/quote]

These finding may indicate that there was a problem with Polygraph Management, Polygraph Supervisors and even a Polygraph examiner who chose to believe AMES rather than what his charts were telling him, but I stand by my comments that he did not pass his polygraph, because the results of the test showed he was being deceptive and  both of these investigative bodies that actually had access to ALL of the information and were looking to establish culpability for failure to locate and identify this traitor before he did serious damage;  failed to conclude that the failure to catch this traitor was the fault of polygraph even though there were some criticisms of the CIA management, coordination, and polygraph review structures. 

I'm convinced that the reason Ames wasn't caught sooner lies in our government's asinine refusal to share information with itself

This is a paragraph from DNA Technology in Forensic Science from Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, National Research Council 
Quote:
Testing methods and data need to be made available for public scrutiny. There has been a notable dearth of published research in forensic DNA testing by scientists unconnected to the companies that market the tests. In contrast with the research approach whereby new drugs and biomedical devices undergo controlled trials of safety and efficacy, forensic science has used more informal modes of evaluating new techniques. The process of peer review used to assess advances in biomedical science and technology should be used for forensic DNA technology. (Emphasis added)
 

There seems to be a some notable similarities here.

Sancho Panza
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2008 at 4:28pm
  Mark & Quote
SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30th, 2008 at 2:18pm:
Dr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?


Sullivan's statement that Ames beat the polygraph is not contradicted but rather confirmed by the CIA Inspector General's report, the unclassified summary of which states regarding his 1986 polygraph:

Quote:
1986 Polygraph Examination:

At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.

Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.

Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."

Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.

According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.


The IG report also indicates that Ames also passed his 1991 polygraph:

Quote:
1991 Polygraph:

The derogatory information developed during Ames's background investigation also was not provided to the polygraph examiner before Ames's polygraph. The background investigation results were forwarded to the Office of Security on April 12, 1991, the same day that Ames was given his polygraph examination. According to polygraph officials, there was no requirement that background investigation information be made available to polygraphers prior to an examination.

The polygraph supervisor and the examiner were aware that there was some question about Ames's unexplained wealth, but neither recalls actually seeing the December 5, 1990 memorandum from the CIC or having the information in the memo specifically discussed with them. The polygraphers stated that they conducted a routine polygraph examination of Ames, and did not focus on financial questions other than those routinely asked of all employees during an update polygraph.

As is normal procedure, the polygrapher interviewed Ames prior to beginning the polygraph, and at that time Ames volunteered some information on his finances. He said he had money that came principally from his mother-in-law, that he owned property in Colombia, and that he had made several small, but lucrative, investments. Once the polygraph test began he was asked whether he was concealing any financial difficulties from the Agency. To this question Ames answered no, showing no signs of deception. According to CIA officials, the examiner did not ask questions during the polygraph test about the specific examples of Ames's unexplained affluence because they considered this a routine polygraph and were not advised to do any specialized questioning. CIC officials stated that they wanted Ames's polygraph to appear in every way to be routine so as not to tip Ames off to any specific concern in this area.

According to the CIA IG interviews of Ames, "Ames states that if the Agency had interviewed him about his spending in the context of a reinvestigation, he would not have been terribly alarmed. In fact, he prepared himself for the possibility that he would be asked about his finances. Ames attempted to account for the cash purchase of his Arlington home by having a gift letter prepared and notarized making it appear to have been a gift from his mother in law. He states that at some point someone would learn that he had purchased the house for cash and it was reasonable to expect that someone would ask him about the source of his wealth. But no one ever did."

Ames also showed no reaction when he was asked whether he was working for a foreign intelligence service. Deception was indicated, however, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, Ames continued to show deception in response to the question. The examiner, as was standard CIA practice, ended the test, called it incomplete, and asked Ames to return again in a few days to try to successfully complete the test.

Four days later Ames returned to finish the polygraph examination. On that day, with a different polygrapher, Ames answered all questions without any deceptive response, including the question regarding unreported contacts with a foreign national. The reaction that had occurred on the previous test was not present, according to the examiner. In fact, the examiner noted that Ames's overall level of responsiveness was down considerably from the prior test. No additional polygraph questions were asked about Ames's finances. The polygrapher concluded the test, dismissed Ames and wrote the polygraph report indicating Ames had passed the test. However, in file notes, the first examiner commented, "I don't think he is a spy, but I am not 100% convinced because of the money situation." CIA officials have recently stated that, in retrospect, the security background check on Ames should have preceded the polygraph and the polygraph examination should have been conducted after taking the results of the investigation into account.

Ames told the CIA IG investigators that he accepted his reinvestigation in 1991 as routine since he was aware that the five-year reinvestigation program "had taken hold." However, he had expected that the 1991 reinvestigation would be more direct and pointed than his 1986 test. Ames maintained that his passing the 1986 polygraph was very important to him because it gave him confidence and reduced his anxiety. Ames was still apprehensive, however, because he viewed the polygraph as "rolling the dice and so I felt that it was perfectly possible that even if I were telling the truth instead of lying I might have problems." Ames said he never received training from the KGB on how to beat the polygraph. He acknowledges, however, that the KGB advised him to "just relax, don't worry, you have nothing to fear."

In its review of the Ames polygraphs, the CIA IG report quotes several current and former polygraph examiners who stated that the Ames case should not be considered to be a polygraph "chart interpretation" problem. Rather, they say, the fundamental problem is that the 1986 and 1991 polygraph charts were invalid because the examiner in each case failed to establish a proper psychological atmosphere in the examination sessions. A former polygrapher noted that without proper preparation, a subject has no fear of detection and, without fear of detection, the subject will not necessarily demonstrate the proper physiological response. Consequently, they surmise, the Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.

The fact that Ames passed his 1991 polygraph caused the CIC investigative team to be less suspicious of him....


Clearly, Ames passed both his 1986 and 1991 CIA polygraph tests. You were mistaken when you stated he did not.

You also write:

Quote:
I see nothing in your CV (Isn't your PHD in Near Eastern Studies) that would indicate that you are qualified to assess the rigor of a scientific study.
The NAS didn't even LOOK at them. 

If you aren't qualified and they didn't look, neither of you are in a position to comment authoritatively on their value or lack of value


A good preliminary yardstick for assessing the rigor of a study is whether it passed the muster of peer review in a refereed scientific journal. The great majority of the American Polygraph Association's "more than 1,000 research studies available" don't meet this basic threshold.
 
  Top