A few days ago I made a statement indicating that the information in TLBTLD regarding the use of countermeasure was misleading at best.

Addressing Dr. Maschke, I wrote:
SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:


Here is what the NAS study had to say: Quote:


SanchoPanza

I think we are way off track of a polygraph discussion both pro or anti with discussion of genitals.  While it might help the major networks during sweep weeks, it does little to promote a reasonable discussion.

Again, I would urge polygraph proponents to ignore all comments on this site if you are confident of your craft.  There is no reason to negate a negative.  You are only adding to the credibility of this site with every posting that is made.  You are spending time responding to poor losers and liars.  Let it go.  If we are wrong, we will slowly fade away with time.

I will attest that this has to be one of the least censored sites regarding the posting of opposing points of views.  How else could it get the extremely high hits from Google when you put in "polygraph" for a search engine.  I would believe it when I put in "antipolygraph" because it is an antipolygraph site, clear and simple.  I am always amazed how it ranks so high for a "polygraph" site.  It is because so many proponents of the polgyraph keep posting here.  

I would not want to be the "wind beneath the wings" of an anti-polygraph site by posting here if I were a proponent of the use of polygraphs.

A toast (tongue-in-cheek) to those who oppose my opinion.

Regards.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 1:28am:



Careful TC he might think you are after his genitals too and I have to tell you//........ He's mine dam it and u can't have him 

Quote:


"He's a pretty kid, too. I mean I don't know, I gotta problem if I should crappity smack him or fight him. ..."

Raging Bull, 1980

[quote author=4F7D727F74734C7D72667D1C0 link=1222384195/90#99 date=1223847007]Dr. Maschke.
Casuistry,  Really  

All questions on a polygraph examination serve a significant purpose in the testing process and by definition are relevant whether they are officially labled as relevant questions or not. If you would actually read some of the peer reviewed research you constantly "cherry pick" you would know that each question serves a relevant purpose to the construct of the testing process. 

I still refuse to be baited into doing your research for you.  Are you lazy?

My credibility is shot?  Don’t make me laugh.

The opinion of Dr. George Maschke,  a sex offender sheltering, terrorist aiding, egotistical, pseudo-intellectual advisor to criminals of all shapes and sizes, who hides from his rejection by the U.S. Government in the Netherlands, refusing to  stop whining about being caught lying on one polygraph and trying to cheat on another polygraph,  concerning my credibility doesn't bother me at all. Really it doesn't

I think you are simply trying to anger me into leaving this board because you know I speak the truth about Polygraph and Countermeasures. You claim to want the truth. You claim to speak the truth.   

The simple fact is YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

You may ban me anytime you wish, you can even delete my comments exposing your true character, but until such time as you do, I will come and go as I please. It’s your board. 

Sancho Panza

You continually expect Dr. Maschke to either ban you or somehow edit or delete your comments. Something he is never done.
If he was trying to anger you solely to "leave this board" he needn't do that since he could just ban you.

I for one, ( I can't speak for Dr. Maschke ) enjoy your amusing and pompous views. 

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 12:08am:


I will when you stop providing me with the "artistic fodder"   

Notguilty1 I would appreciate it if you would stop spending so much time thinking about whatever is located between my legs literally or figuratively. 

Your lifestyle choices are, of course, a matter of you own personal preference, You are certainly entitled to live your life the way you wish, but I choose not to participate. 

So, if you find your private thoughts returning to my genital area again whether as the fodder for artistic commentary or as the focus of some other deviant contemplation.  Please stop.

Thank you
Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:



Sancho, My attempt at trying to discuss this matter with an intelligent person ended a long time ago when I realized who I was dealing with. It has further been quelled by the realization that you are nothing more than a troll looking to feel superior behind your keyboard.
The picture with your screen name on it, ( not your real name) was not intended as pornography which most people viewing it would agree. It was simply a depiction of what is obviously going on with you.
A empty man holding, from what seems to be his "missing" manhood a shotgun to shoot at others, both figuratively and professionally. 
I know this, in the mind of a shallow man is lost but I don't post to this site to please you.

The truth is inconvenient for you and your suggestion that you respond to me so I don't feel left out is preposterous.
I am the reason and common sense that you need to fight to keep your scam, or your trolling going. 
If your arguments had any validity at all in fact you would have no need to waste your time with us here.
The posts here that confirm that this pseudo-science of yours is not accurate, consistent or in fact useful for deception detection are squashing your arguments on a daily basis and you have no one backing your views so you resort to attacks on these peoples intelligence, honesty and resolve to right a wrong.

Actually, the picture was not accurate at all since nothing on you can possibly be that big.

Peace my hollow man

Dr. Maschke.
Casuistry,  Really  

All questions on a polygraph examination serve a significant purpose in the testing process and by definition are relevant whether they are officially labled as relevant questions or not. If you would actually read some of the peer reviewed research you constantly "cherry pick" you would know that each question serves a relevant purpose to the construct of the testing process. 

I still refuse to be baited into doing your research for you.  Are you lazy?

My credibility is shot?  Don’t make me laugh.

The opinion of Dr. George Maschke,  a sex offender sheltering, terrorist aiding, egotistical, pseudo-intellectual advisor to criminals of all shapes and sizes, who hides from his rejection by the U.S. Government in the Netherlands, refusing to  stop whining about being caught lying on one polygraph and trying to cheat on another polygraph,  concerning my credibility doesn't bother me at all. Really it doesn't

I think you are simply trying to anger me into leaving this board because you know I speak the truth about Polygraph and Countermeasures. You claim to want the truth. You claim to speak the truth.   

The simple fact is YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

You may ban me anytime you wish, you can even delete my comments exposing your true character, but until such time as you do, I will come and go as I please. It’s your board. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:


I'm not playing any "label game." The relevant questions are the ones that are of true concern. I've never advocated that persons seeking positions of public trust should answer these questions dishonestly.

Quote:


The Lie Behind the Lie Detector does not encourage people to lie about relevant issues. Your suggestion that all questions are "relevant" is an exercise in casuistry.

Quote:


Indeed, I've never advised people to answer relevant questions untruthfully.

Quote:


Relevant issues are those addressed by the relevant questions in a polygraph examination. Again, I've never advised anyone to answer such questions untruthfully.

Quote:


Your argument that trying to successfully use countermeasures is like an impossible juggling task is undermined by peer-reviewed research in which half of test subjects succeeded in beating the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction. And even experienced polygraph examiners could not detect the countermeasures used. Citations are provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Sancho Panza, your credibility is spent. You destroyed it with your deliberate lie about the existence of published studies showing that countermeasures like those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You know there are no such studies. How did you ever think you could get away with such an outrageous falsehood? You might get away with saying such a thing to examinees in your polygraph suite who won't risk contradicting you. But such an outrageous lie won't fly here.

Meangina,  If you will go back and review notguilty1s posts you will find out that not only does he engage in frequent ad hominum attacks against me, you will find that my observations are accurate. 

The only reason I respond to him at all is I don't want him to feel left out. As you can see he just posted a somewhat pornographic depiction with my name on it, but Dr. Maschke has thus far declined to censure his activity. I actually asked Dr. Maschke both publicly and privately to address his attacks. He has declined and therefore I no longer have any compunction regarding responding in kind and couldn't care less about your opinion on the matter. 

My current response to him below should give you some idea of what it is actually like trying to communicate with him on an intelligent level.  I hated standing at the top of that ladder.


Sancho Panza

Dr. Maschke, You are playing a “label game” attempting to mislead people into believing that you are promoting honesty.   "Relevant Question" is a label used by polygraphers to identify those questions that directly address the matter under investigation. Could a better label be found? Yes probably, but that is the one they chose. Polygraphers used to refer to "comparison questions" as "control questions" until they arrived at a new consensus regarding that label, but many polygraphers still use the old terminology even though "Control Questions" don't really "control" anything or provide a "control" in the strictest scientific terminology .  "Neutral questions" used to be called "Irrelevant Questions" even though they are not at all irrelevant to the process. Once again it appears that a consensus among examiners brought a change in terminology, although the purpose of the question and its relevance to the overall process hasn't changed.

All that being said every question on a polygraph examination has relevance because they all have a significant and demonstrable bearing on the testing process. Thus every question on the test addresses a relevant issue whether or not it is labeled as a "Relevant Question”. Intentionally attempting to manufacture misleading responses to any question on a polygraph test is dishonest. Your book is full of evidence that proves that you are trying to justify encourage, condone and also trying to instruct people in the mechanics of successfully lying on polygraph tests. Do I really have to go back and cut and paste ALL of those quotes again? Talk about being knowingly dishonest, you co-wrote the book

So if you want to say that you have never advised people to lie to questions bearing the label” Relevant Question" OK.  Because I think you are well aware that it is impossible to suppress an authentic reaction. 

But for to claim that you Quote:
is patently false. 


The dishonesty in your statement; Quote:
lies mainly in your failure to disclose what the examinee must really accomplish while sitting in a polygraph chair, in order to produce a single  indistinguishable response. 

The main problem with your advice concerning manufacturing responses to comparison questions is that an examinee who has read your book still has no idea what data collected from his reactivity to relevant questions might look like on the day he is taking the test. 

So in order have the remotest possibility of successfully using countermeasures he has to:
1. Read your book to the point that he believes he can accurately follow your instructions and if your techniques actually work, use them to
2. accurately mimic the physiological changes brought about by autonomic arousal and collected by several different sensor components while
3. blindly guessing how much of the technique must be applied in order to be enough to overshadow his reactivity to the relevant questions and how much would be too much in order to avoid suspicion brought about by their conspicuous appearance,
4. in comparison to data collected from a true autonomic reaction that
5. he can’t see and
6. he can’t suppress
7.and repeat the entire process on each comparison question in such a fashion that his manufactured reactions don't all look exactly alike or manufactured.
8. in the presence of a trained examiner
      a.      thoroughly familiar with the instrumentation of the polygraph, 
      b.      considerable experience looking at collected data, and 
      c.      training in detecting exactly the type of countermeasures you endorse, 
9. while the data is being recorded for further review, analysis,  and quality control if needed
10. Oh yes, and he has to listen to the questions too.   

Does that sound as simple as you make it sound in your book? Looking for something easier to do? Try standing on top of three balanced bowling balls while juggling chain saws. While both might be possible it is unlikely a person would be successful at either just by reading a book about it

Sancho Panza

Hey Sancho 
All I can say for you is........ here's a picture for your ego!

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 2:52pm:


Sancho, like most polygraphers on this board you all too frequently resort to these ad hominem attacks against anyone who challenges you to debate.

I suggest you mount your donkey, Rucío, and ride off into the sunset.

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:


Sancho Panza,

I have never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination. And unlike you, I have never lied, or attempted to mislead others, about polygraphy.

Notguilty1 I would like to addess your intelligence.

Presuming it actually exists. do you have any idea where it might be currenltly located?  .

Sancho Panza

Evan S   Observations are not accusations. The phrases attributed to Poly-Ana were cut and pasted from her posts. The statements are hers not mine and they do appear to be mutually exclusive. 

Sancho Panza

That's rich Dr. Maschke  YOU of all people calling me dishonest. 

You promote dishonesty with every egotistical beath you take. "It is hard to say which of the two we ought most to lament,--the unhappy man who sinks under the sense of his dishonesty, or him who survives it."  You certainly fall in the latter category. 

I almost wish I had known you when you were alive

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

You are compounding your lie by repeating it. There are no published studies that support the notion that polygraph examiners can detect the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

You are not just a fool. You are a knowingly dishonest fool. Shame on you.

Dr. Maschke,

ONE MORE TIME   I am not going to do your research for you especially since I believe you would make the information available to enemies of our country. I wll not be chided, baited, tricked, or coerced into helping you help criminals in any way. Your last post was a fairly feeble attempt at baiting. Its there GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF. It was there when the NAS did their review, they just found themselves incapable of obtaining high enough security clearances to view what was then, classified information. A lot of the best information remains classified because OUR government does not want people like you to make the information readily available to criminals and the enemies of our government. So while there are published studies out there if you will look that support my contention, the information you really should be worried about, you probably will never be allowed to read because you have been determined to be unsuitable for the appropriate clearances. 

Considering your book and the behavior you endorse on this site, the act of you calling ME a liar must be some kind of official acceptance into the membership of your deceit society. How do you reconcile the fact that you tell your readers it is OK to tell lies, deliberately conceal information and even provides advice on how to lie , while at the same time you and  your  disciples call people like me, who believe in polygraph, and  polygraph examiners liars without any substantial proof.  Until you explain that I must decline your offer of membership. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 1:48am:


It is not any published research that convinced me that the anal sphincter contraction used as a polygraph countermeasure might be detectable. To my knowledge, no such research has been published. Rather, the reason we no longer suggest the anal sphincter contraction as a countermeasure is that the claim that such can be detected with piezoelectric sensor pads seems plausible.

Quote:


If studies showing that polygraphers can detect countermeasures have been published, then by definition they're public, and there is no harm in citing them. I do follow the polygraph literature, and have not seen a single study showing any ability of the polygraph community to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The reason you won't cite any such article is not that you don't want to help criminals. You won't provide a citation because you have lied. No such study has been published.

Quote:


If I were presented with compelling evidence that the polygraph community has developed a reliable method of countermeasure detection, I would certainly not suggest that anyone use such to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome. But there is no such evidence. Which is why you cannot cite a single article to support the notion that the polygraph community can reliably detect countermeasures.

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 1:21am:



Sancho:

I am disgusted with your unsubstantiated accusations against Poly-ana, and you owe her an apology.  Her polygraph experience is similar to mine.  I work for a large aerospace company in Southern California on classified work that requires a TES polygraph about every five years.  Last polygraph was in 2000.  Actually was performed four separate times.  The examiner knew I had taken a previous polygraph in 1994 (I did not volunteer this to him, he researched it before the test) and made a sour remark to the effect that the 1994 polygraph was shaky.  (If he is reading this message, I invite him to respond to my posting.  He can figure out who I am.)  His researching my previous polygraph (coming into the test with prejudice) and his sour remark were ethical violations.

How can you say that remaining calm is necessary to pass a polygraph?  The fear of failing the polygraph could possibly lead to the revocation of the security clearance and possibly the loss of the job.  If the polygraph test is scientific, why should it matter if the subject is calm or agitated?

Poly-ana eventually passed the polygraph by being willing to take it as many times as asked, and by answering the relevant questions in the negative.  It had nothing to do with her innocence (probability of being guilty of committing espionage, sabotage, and/or terrorism is about 1/10,000, probability of being innocent is 9,999/10,000).  An analogy:  A coin will eventually land on heads if tossed enough times.

Sancho...are you really Dr. Gordon Barland?

Regards,
Evan S

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 1:21am:



Poly-ana
As you can see what I said is true. Now, he has, ( since he cannot confess that Poly's don't work) to relegating you to the class of "purposely misleading " and "intellectually incapable".
 
I am convinced that Sancho is nothing more than a troll that goes on web sites just to interact negatively with others because they haven't the cojones to stand up that way to any one in real life.

I mean, he just ...... can't be that stupid and, I mean it in this way :
"dazed and unable to think clearly"

Dr. Maschke,

You statement Quote:
 
May have been accurate over 10 years ago when the last research you cited was completed, but what in the world would make you think that no progress has been made since. Especially when you are well aware that research published since your book first came out convinced you that sphincter contraction was detectable to the point you began warning your readers not to try it. 

If you will look, you will find published studies as late as 2007 that countermeasures are detectable and that honest people who employ them actually lessen their chances of passing a test. Like I said before. If you had the information you would begin trying to figure out how to get around the detection methods. The information is out there if you will look for it,  but I am not going to do your research for you especially since I believe you would make the information available to enemies of our country. 

I wll not be chided, baited, tricked, or coerced into helping you help criminals in any way. 

Kpminam is just the tip of the iceberg. You are either going to have to figure out a way to educate yourself or get out of the countermeasure business. 

Sancho Panza

Laugh if it makes you feel good poly-ana but any error I made in describing the type of test you took stems directly from your pitiful inability to describe the details of your test when asked. Unless of course you deliberately mislead me in order to avoid getting an answer to your question that you didn't want to hear. Are you intellectually incapable or deliberately dishonest? You must be at least one,  possibly both. 

In your post from 9:39 this morning you said 
Quote:

now in your last post you say Quote:


On your first post on this board you state 
Quote:
and then now you claim Quote:


I'm starting to see why you have problems with passing a polygraph. It's  because you make mutually exclusive statements and then claim both are the truth. 


Sancho Panza