AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Topic Summary - Displaying 8 post(s).

Posted by: beech trees Posted on: May 23^rd, 2002 at 10:57am	Mark & Quote Quote
Actually, the entire plea is: Not guilty, by reason of diminished capacity, brought about by an overdose of Rogaine

Posted by: eisenmann372002
Posted on: May 23^rd, 2002 at 10:06am

Mark & Quote

Quote

I am a tremendous fan of dry, subtle, and/or sarcastic humor. I was just compelled to point out two very amusing things from two separate posts. By restating them here, I know it brings the humor "down" a little bit, since the subtlety was wonderful in the first place, but these were really, really funny to me:

"Screwed" wrote: "I practiced “countermeasures” until my butt hurt."

To which Gino replied:

If you were following our directions (that the effort for this countermeasure be submaximal), I doubt that you caused yourself pain practicing countermeasures. Perhaps you irritated that area in some other way.

And in response to "Screwed"'s claim, deputy bear wrote:

"If you still want to assert your claim, then I can see why a 13 year old could "take advantage" of you. You should have entered a plea of diminished capacity."

Ah, that's good comedy.

Posted by: deputy bear (Guest)
Posted on: May 23^rd, 2002 at 9:12am

Mark & Quote

Quote

George I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. I was reading the post and thought immediately that this was someone trying to discredit the site. I like the little story "Now my probation officer knows I have had more contact with my “victim” (Long story, but the short of it was that she was 13 and seduced me). I would say good, let your sorry ass go to jail, sorry prison, but I simply do not believe this is a valid post.
Nice try screwed, but if your post were true, you would be the only person to fail after studying and practicing as much as you claim. If you still want to assert your claim, then I can see why a 13 year old could "take advantage" of you. You should have entered a plea of diminished capacity.

Posted by: G Scalabr
Posted on: May 22^nd, 2002 at 8:50am

Mark & Quote

Quote

Quote:

practiced “countermeasures” until my butt hurt.

If you were following our directions (that the effort for this countermeasure be submaximal), I doubt that you caused yourself pain practicing countermeasures. Perhaps you irritated that area in some other way.

As George pointed out, since you claim to have 'fessed up to using countermeasures, you are apparently unwilling or incapable of following our advice.

Like the others, I doubt the veracity of your claims as a whole.

Posted by: beech trees
Posted on: May 22^nd, 2002 at 12:10am

Mark & Quote

Bwoop bwoop. . . . BS-o-meter off the scales with this one. The poster portrays polygraph interrogators in such a shining light of omniscience, while portraying himself as of course the lowest of the low, a pedophile, that I am highly suspicious, highly suspicious, of the veracity here.

When done correctly, augmented reactions to Control Questions are indistinguishable from 'genuine' responses. As well, abandoning the use of countermeasures for the POT, in which you reacted strongly to George's name, would also doom one to failure. You are incorrect when you write "YOU NEVER TOLD ME ABOUT THIS TEST!" Page 99 of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector describes POT tests and how to deal with them. Did you read it?

What reactions did your polygraph interrogator point out as countermeasures?

Who is your Probation Officer? I find it odd that in your assertions you call him a Probation, not Parole Officer, yet you say you are 'going back to jail'. Parolees, not Probationees, return to jail-- Probationees never go to jail.

This post stinks. Come on, pro-poly-money-grubbing Fourth-Fifth-and-Tenth-Amendment-trampling snakeoil salesmen, you can do better!

Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 21^st, 2002 at 10:12pm

Mark & Quote

"Screwed" describes the use of a peak of tension test including my and Gino Scalabrini's names as a sort of counter-countermeasure (that is, to determine whether the subject has knowledge of countermeasures).

Such a technique is described in retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan's new book, Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers (University of Kansas Press, 2002). Sullivan writes at p. 235:

Quote:

As a senior examiner, I was given the opportunity to do some very good tests. In 1979, I did what I think was my best test. I caught an Eastern European double agent who had been working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for five years. The agent was due to return to Czechoslovakia, and the FBI asked us if we wanted to take him over. The Agency was willing to take him, but he had to be polygraphed first.

During my tour with the [U.S. Army's] 513th Military Intelligence Group in Germany from January 1965 until July 1967, one of our polygraph examiners, S. Sgt. Glen Rohrer, defected to Czechoslovakia. While investigating his defection, we learned that the Czechs ran a polygraph countermeasures program and that the head of the program was a Dr. Miroslav Dufek. Going on the assumption that if an agent were a Czech intelligence officer he would probably know or at least recognize Dufek's name, I constructed a test in which I asked the agent if he knew or had any knowledge of a Dr. Miroslav Dufek or six other doctors whose names I had taken from a Prague telephone book. When I pretested the questions with the agent, he denied recognizing or having knowledge of the men whose names I used on the test. He also denied any contact with Czech intelligence before or since coming to the United States. The only name to which he reacted on the test was Dufek's. I confronted him, and after about an hour, he said, "I think Dufek debriefs diplomats when they return from overseas."

Based on his pretest denial of any contact whatsoever with Czech intelligence, this was information he should not have known. At that point, I brought the FBI agent and our case officer, Aldrich Ames, to the room where I was conducting the test and, without any hesitation, said, "This guy is a Czech Intel officer and has reported to them on his contacts with the Bureau."

The agent shrugged his shoulders and said, "Not me." I could not get him to confess, and the session was terminated.

Sullivan goes on to write that a week later, "the FBI called to let [him] know that it had determined that the agent [he] had tested was a Czech intelligence officer." However, Sullivan does not reveal how the FBI determined this to be so.

Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 21^st, 2002 at 9:52pm

Mark & Quote

Quote

The "special test" you describe is a "peak of tension" or "guilty knowledge" test. You'll find it described toward the end of Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

If you made any damaging admissions, you didn't follow the most basic advice we provide in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I have to admit that I'm skeptical as to whether your post is genuine or a disinformational fabrication by a polygraph proponent. (We've had such a post recently: see the message thread Reformed and Grateful.)

Feel free to e-mail me (maschke@antipolygraph.org) if you would like to discuss this matter privately.

Posted by: screwed
Posted on: May 21^st, 2002 at 8:59pm

Mark & Quote

This website was of NO Help!

Boy, am I SCREWED and I do not understand why! I downloaded and read “The Lie Behind the Lie Detector”, I bought Mr. Williams’ book for almost fifty bucks. I practiced “countermeasures” until my butt hurt. I said and did everything in the polygraph test you guys told me to do, and still I FAILED. Not only did I fail, but the examiner laughed out loud as he showed me EACH and EVERY place I tried to create reactions to the “controls”. Well, still following YOUR ADVICE, I denied trying to affect the test and even denied ever accessing this website (again, per your advice). Then the polygrapher gave me a “special test.” He wrote down six names on a piece of paper. Five of the names I did not recognize. The sixth one was “George Maschke.” Of course I denied knowing who any of the names belonged to. Well, obviously, just like I was lying on the original test, I knew I was lying when he asked, “Have you ever heard of George Maschke?” He showed me the charts and there was a HUGE reaction every time that name was mentioned. Then he ran more tests using the name “Gino Scalabrini” mixed in with five others. Again, there were HUGE reactions to that name. Of course, there was virtually no reaction to any of the other names on either of the exams. YOU NEVER TOLD ME ABOUT THIS TEST! What could I do? The examiner kept looking at me that that stupid knowing grin and I felt like the four year old who got caught in mama’s cookie jar! I told him everything. Now my probation officer knows I have had more contact with my “victim” (Long story, but the short of it was that she was 13 and seduced me). Now I am probably going back to JAIL! Thanks for NOTHING!!!!

Screwed…. Cry

Question:

Options:	Text	Color	Split Pie
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
Option 5:
Option 6:
Option 7:
Option 8:

Automatic End in:	days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.
Enable Guest Voting:	Check this if you want guests to be able to vote in this poll.
Hide results:	Check this if you do not want the results of this poll shown until voting has been closed.
Multiple Choice	Check this if you want to allow users to vote for more than one option.
Time limit for deleting vote:	Time in minutes users are allowed to delete their vote (0 to disable delete).
Use legends for Pie Chart	Check this to use legends instead of labels next to each pie slice.
Pie Chart Radius:	Must be a value between 100 and 200 (default 100)

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview