You offer a great service

Mark
Ok thanks. Ill read your statement before making any other comments, or asking questions.

Quote:


Breeze,

It was a CQT screening test, followed by a few more screening tests.

By the end of the investigation, I had been given a CQT, a directed lie, a peak of tension, a relevant-irrelevant, a stim test, and maybe a few others I blanked out of memory.  None was a specific issue CQT.

Mark
I must confess your evidence seems shakey.  I think you took me to task for good investigative procedure and now your merely working like a street cop! Welcome back to LE mark, we could use you.  I bet you could pass a screening test to get back in!
On a serious note ( I have not read your personal statement ) what type of test were you given in your ordeal, I presume you failed a specific issue test?

Quote:


An American,

I am disappointed in you that you are so disappointed in me.  I would have thought you would have applauded my suspicion as a good law enforcement trait (which I believe it is, don't you?).  Or is it just suspicion of others that's OK?

Notice too that I never stated you were Robin Hood.  I cited some facts in place that may suggest it, but it's uncertain.  It seems uncertainty is a concept shunned by many polygraphers (it appears you missed it too).

But they will soon have to embrace it, because at the end of a polygraph session without a credible confession, one must be uncertain, based on the charts alone, as to whether the subject was deceptive or not.

Whether you are or are not Robin Hood would not tell anyone your identity.  And I agree, it doesn't matter who you are.

I was just engaging, as I believe Skeptic was too, in some half-serious amusement.

An American,

I suspect that you have fallen into the truth and that Robin Hood's post (which may or may not be an illegal act itself) does lead one via a link to a copyright violation (a criminal violation).  This, though, is neither your nor Mr. Maschke’s responsibility to independently determine.  If Mr. Williams believes such has occurred (i.e., his material has been properly copyrighted and that copyright has been infringed upon, he (Mr. Williams) should contact proper authorities and when those proper authorities in due course advise Mr. Maschke that they believe a violation of law has taken place, no doubt Mr. Maschke when properly advised (and requested to do so) will remove that (Robin Hood post) which might further said violation.  Any removal prior to such time would only set a very poor precedent and allow anyone who did want censorship to scurrilously litter the message board landscape with questionable posts and then call for broad removal of material. 

The issue of censorship arises in connection with your name, not because you appear to be a pro-polygraph spokesperson and because we are unaware of a single pro-polygraph site that does not practice censorship, but because of your complete lack of thought process, ensuing reckless allegations and would be censorship regarding the material connected with that which has been entitled Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection.  You have only yourself to blame for the perceptions you have created.

An American

If you noticed my post on "Polygraph Policy" you would know I'm baaaccck. For a little while anyway. BTW, would you like to make an attempt at answering my questions on that thread.

As far as indentifying posters using different names, one doesn't have to have a thesaurus or a degree in sononymy to make the identification. No, I won't (won't, wouldn't, etc., is one indentity to my style of writing) take this any farther. I get a big kick out of it. 

As for posting Mr. William's book on this website, I think it's a damn dirty trick, done by a dirty trick professional seeking revenge.

C'mon guys, give me a break! If you seek to identify who provided that link, for whatever it is worth, Robin Hood and I are NOT (damn, used those caps again) one and the same person. Just to clarify, yes, Skeptic, you sly rascal, I have been absent for some time, but guess why? I have been on vacation. You may have noticed but there have been a numberof people who participate in this site and then are gone for a while (where is Beech Trees, Two Block?) And  Mark, I am so disappointed in you, here you purport to have been an attorney and an FBI agent, and the best you cn come up with is a "similarity" in the way words were typed (caps vs lower case) OUCH! Besides, why are you so interested in who I am? I was given to understand that anonimity was a key element to this site. Now listen carefully, whoever posted Doug's manual was not I. Why would I post something and then be the first to bring it to your attention.? That would certainly defy logic don't you think? Another point, someone talked about censorship. I wasn't thinking in terms of censorship, but I think whoever posted that information stepped over the line and the AP.O folks should have caused that link to be pulled because it constituted a violation of the law.  I guess now you will say "Methinks he doth protest too much...therefore...." but have your fun.

Well, well, well! It looks like the good people of Nottinghamshire will have to go a-googling themselves for the words of "DOUGLAS GENE WILLIAMS," the self-confessed "right-wing terrorist" who  pleads "guilty to crimes against humanity". The same "DOUGLAS GENE WILLIAMS" who "tortured thousands of people, documented more forced confessions than most Gestapo Agents, violated countless constitutional rights, and had absolutely no regard for human dignity".

Hey Doug, it looks like the "old version" of your manual is close enough to the "revised edition" to have you sweating bullets!

You say in your manual "I'm from the buckle on the Bible Belt, and out here we are taught that if we sin, we must confess and make restitution before we can expect exoneration - this restitution business is what's driving me nuts."

What the hell kind of "restitution" are you making by charging people $47.45 for your piece of $hit manual?! At least the people who run this website believe in something, however misguided. You, on the other hand, are a goddam hypocrite. "From the buckle of the Bible Belt" my ass! You worship at the temple of the $$$ ALMIGHTY DOLLAR $$$!

Hey Doug, guess what?! If these anti-poly people get there way, YOUR OUT OF BUSINESS!!! Maybe you should "confess and make restitution" to the law enforcement community that you BETRAYED.

Quote:


With all due respect to Mr. Williams and his work, I have to disagree somewhat with the "unethical" part, above.  The responsibility here lies squarely on the head of the person who posted the manual in violation of copyright.  IMHO this is one of the ways in which the recently-enacted DMCA goes too far.

As for legalities, however, I'm afraid Mr. Williams may indeed be correct, thanks to the afore-mentioned DMCA.

As much as I hate the thought of any censorship here (and there have certainly been many things worthy of such action; just ask "An American" to quote his greatest hits), eliminating clearly illegal material (as opposed to censoring for content) is certainly forgiveable.  Contrast this with other polygraph message boards run by polygraphers that censor opposing views, and the difference will still be clearly visible.

I also think it would be worth it to try to track down the person who posted the link here.  I'm sure Mr. Williams would be happy to have that information.

Just my $.02.
Skeptic

All that aside.  It still doesn't alter the fact that George is wrong in continuing to post this website on the board.  It is certainly unethical and my be illegal.

Doug

Quote:


If this were a polygraph chamber or the polygraph interrogator lounge, there would be more than enough info to nail "An American" as "Robin Hood."

We can't be certain, but the timing is certainly glaring.  

Also, I went back and looked at some of "An American's" past posts.  I noticed he/she likes to use capitals on one word when emphasizing a point, just as Robin Hood did when he wrote that the Doug Williams' manual is "FREE."  Hmmm.

And I agree with Skeptic that the part about us blaming them for the post was curiously defensive.  Not just that, it was totally gratuitous, which makes me suspicious.

Quote:


It is a remarkable coincidence that after failing to post for several weeks, "An American" promptly showed up immediately after "Robin Hood's" information was posted.  I also find his preemptive statement, "At least you can be sure of one thing, it isn't the pro-polygraph folks behind this (now watch them blame us anyway)." curiously defensive.  It almost has a guilty tone to it.

Ah, well, I'm not saying "An American" is the author of the post, either.  But it is, indeed...interesting.

Skeptic

Quote:


I imagine that will indeed be rare -- truth and honesty seem a little too far down on your list of priorities for us to agree on things often.

I've made my feelings on this issue quite clear.  But I feel the responsibility for this lies entirely with the person hosting the copyrighted material illegally.  One of the strengths of antipolygraph.org is the lack of censorship.

Skeptic

Subpoena the hosting ISP's weblogs, Doug...... count the number of views of the copyrighted page and then sue them for treble damages.

The "American" is right George.  You really should pull that post, or at least remove the website address.  And yes you know you have pulled other posts in the past.  Do the right thing George.

Doug Williams

An American,

In your first post, you write, among other things:

"Antipolygraph.org has become a party to robinhood and his band of merry men in their quest to violate copyright law in allowing this to be sent out via their site. I guess you need to chose your friends more carefully. At least you can be sure of one thing, it isn't the pro-polygraph folks behind this (now watch them blame us anyway)."

Some points for your consideration:

1) AntiPolygraph.org apparently does not censor posts, and it is quite clear that those who operate this site do not necessarily share the views of all who post here.

2) It is not clear what side of the polygaph debate "Robin Hood" is on. While I am not suggesting that such is the case, for all we know, you could be the author of the "Robin Hood" post.

3) Mr. Williams' material is not hosted on AntiPolygraph.org.

4) It appears that Mr. Williams has taken appropriate action by contacting the site that has apparently violated his copyright.

In your second post you write, among other things:

"You know the [book] I am talking about. the one GM suggested the police applicant read and use to avoid having to reveal his drug use and become a badge carrier."

Where did George Maschke (GM) suggest to any police applicant that he "read and use" any book "to avoid having to reveal his drug use and become a badge carrier?"

Well, Skeptic, finally we see eye to eye on something. Although no one made any differentiation between civil or criminal law. There is a violation of the law. Period. Now, aren't you going to warn all your little lambs to avoid Robin Hood's offering and instead stick with that incredible accurate book.  You know the one I am talking about. the one GM suggested the police applicant read and use to avoid having to reveal his drug use and become a badge carrier. You guys slay me!

Quote:


An American,
Although I absolutely agree with Mr. Williams' right to defend his copyright, it's actually more of a civil than criminal matter.  Rather like the libelous statements you and your ilk have been posting with reckless abandon here regarding George Maschke and others for quite some time.

Skeptic

Hello Doug, now isn't this ironic. ??? I am surprised that your newly chosen friends did not muster their administrator up and prevent this violation of the law from being sent out on their web site. You even "warn"that this is an "old" edition (hmmm, maybe it won't work).  Boy, some folks are going to be mad at you, no George, no, you, no, maybe both of you; I am soooooooo confused.  Make no mistake about it,I do not agree with you or your methods, but the law is the law, and in this case you are right. Antipolygraph.org has become a party to robinhood and his band of merry men in their quest to violate copyright law in allowing this to be sent out via their site. I guess you need to chose your friends more carefully. At least you can be sure of one thing, it isn't the pro-polygraph folks behind this (now watch them blame us anyway).

You must certainly know that is a violation of copyright laws.  And the folks on that website have been notified of that fact as well as the consequences of their actions.  You should also know that what they have is a very old version of my manual, and there are a number of reasons why you should use the revised edition instead of this.   

Doug Williams

Instead of shelling out nearly fifty bucks for "How to Sting the Polygraph" by Doug Williams (http://www.polygraph.com) you can download it FREE here:

[hyperlink to copyrighted material deleted]

Note: While it is AntiPolygraph.org's practice not to censor posts to this message board, an exception has been made with regard to this post, which provided a hypertext link to copyrighted material that was made available on another website without the author's permission.

If you are looking for free information on polygraph countermeasures, the best source is AntiPolygraph.org, where such information is available at no cost, as always.

AntiPolygraph.org Administrator