SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 3:17pm:



Nope.... just took me 3 shots cause I couldn't stop laughing at you

Quote:


When I failed my polygraph, the NSA reported me to the FBI, but they found no substance to NSA security's claims.  The Special Agent actually apologized.  This was the Honolulu office, in April 2002.  I did a FOIA recently and there was nothing on me in their records.  Polygraph high drama at it's best.

If I remember correctly, trimarco claimed GW to be a spy and drug runner.  Either they chose NOT to do a follow up, or did one, and found nothing.

TC

G Scalabr wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 5:00pm:


Maybe, because they believe polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim. Why would they feel the need to launch an investigation ? Dr. Maschke has been successfully denied access to information the U.S. Government has determined to their satisfaction he is not sufficiently trustworthy to possess. In goverment circles, I think they call that "Mission Accomplished".

According to S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood Dr. Maschke was "caught" lying on a polygraph examination and attempting countermeasures, neither of which have a criminal penalty involving prison in the context of a security clearance screening examination.

Sancho Panza

Quote:


If polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?

getrealalready wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 3:43am:


Getrealalready.

If Dr. Maschke, when he wrote his story, would have merely reported examination results and not related them to his actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters, then this discussion would be moot.

In Dr. Maschke's  self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" He characterizes the results of those examinations in the light most favorable to his position. He both claims that he told the truth and denies using countermeasures. However, if you think about it, there just might be differing opinions as to why he failed one exam and was accused of cheating on the other.

Special Agent Trimarco was obviously of the opinion that DR. Maschke Lied on his exam regarding contact with foreign nationals and releasing classified information. It is a reasonable conclusion that Special Agent Trimarco believes that he CAUGHT Dr. Mashke lying on his test. Would we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.

Mr. Youngblood was obviously of the opinion that Dr. Maschke attempted countermeasures on that examination and apparently had it confirmed by his supervisor. It is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Youngblood believes he CAUGHT Dr. Maschke trying to cheat on his exam.

At the very least there are at least three trained professionals who were present during Dr. Maschke's exams who, after careful evaluation of the circumstances and data, disagree with Dr. Maschke's characterization of the findings. There is, at the very least, as much reason, proof, evidence, (whatever you choose to call it) to believe their findings as there is to believe Dr. Maschke. It is no more slanderous of Dr. Maschke to proclaim his guilt than it is slanderous of Special Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood to proclaim his innocence. His story charges the federal government with collusion to deny him a security clearance by getting Mr. Youngblood to accuse him of countermeasures.

If our government somehow decided that they didn't trust Dr. Mashcke for any reason from suspicion of selling classified information to using the wrong fork at dinner, they could have simply revoked his security clearance or chosen not to renew it then classified their reason at a high  level for "national security " and he would never know the why. If they were "out to get him" they wouldn't need a polygraph or collusion to get it done.

Your statement "Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity." is a statement of opinion, No matter how many people might share your opinion, that is all that it is, an opinion.

Sancho Panza

Notguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?

I suspect the real answer is both. 
Sancho Panza

pailryder wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 12:43pm:


Unless you know beforehand if every single person you polygraph is guilty of the crime of which they are accused, how can you tell what percentage of people make truthful confessions?

Twenty years ago what percentage of guilty people confessed?  What percentage of guilty people did not confess?  What are the percentages today?

How do you know that the last hundred people you "passed" weren't lying about every relevant issue on their exam?  How do you know if a random group of a hundred test subjects from twenty years ago that also "passed" their polygraphs were not lying in response to the relevant questions?

I'm sure that twenty years ago the polygraph was a useful device in obtaining confessions, just as it is today.  If that is what you meant I can certainly understand and agree with you.  But I don't see how you could make any comparisons more detailed than that.

S.P.

I stand completely behind that which I wrote and which you in part referred to (partially quoted):  


getrealalready wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:



Again, If you had merely reported that Dr. Maschke had been found deceptive on more than one polygraph, you would have agreed with his considerably earlier self-report on the matter.  You did not.  You engaged in childish slander.

I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters.  Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 3:30am:

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 3:16am:

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 2:49am:

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 11:04pm:


Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:



Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
You crack me up Sancho!
Every day I look forward to reading what stupid statements you'll come up with and in true form you outdo yourself every day 

T.M. Cullen wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 9:05pm:

Mr. Cullen,  

First,  Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.


Second,  Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.

Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.

Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.

Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that
getrealalready wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:
getrealalready wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:


I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.

Sancho Panza

Quote:


I wouldn't doubt that, given that most people come here looking for answers only AFTER being polygraphed.  They bought the popular myth that the polygraph is accurate, therefore are looking for an explanation of why they could have possibly failed having told the truth.

That won't change until the popular media picks up on the truth.  Popular culture is is always slow to change.  It takes at least a generation of two for popular beliefs to change.  In the meantime, open minded people can come here and get the real facts about the polygraph, whilst the masses get their info from Dr. Phil and Maury Povich.

TC

Pailryder,

The only thing that you can take note of and report (now and twenty years ago) is the number of confessions obtained per number of polygraph examinations administered.  This is not the same thing as the considerably more meaningful number of confessions obtained per guilty subjects examined.  You don't have ground truth for the latter.  You no doubt have confirmation of the true status of only a small subset of the number of guilty subjects that you examined during a given period of time.

getrealalready

I can speak only of the confession rate following polygraph examinations that I have personally conducted.  I have not observed any significant change in that rate since the launch of this site.

Anonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.  But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.

TC

S.P.,

The meaningless gibberish in your last post is truly amazing, e.g.,

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 7:15pm:


What kind of yo-yo Dragnet lingo is this?  Dr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams, nothing more, and nothing less.  He was not caught; he was not busted.  

If you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination), you would have given an accurate report (no slander) and even be in agreement with the self-report of Dr. Maschke.  It is when you cross over into nonsensical characterizations that you slander.

Yeah--you know it's coming--get real already!

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 5:01pm:


Malicious.? I for one would have never known that you were busted by S A Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood if you hadn't decided to disclose it to the world. I don't really understand how you could support a claim that anyone who repeats information that you disclosed to the world is acting maliciously.

False?? Well, you just admitted that you couldn't prove that it was false. I just choose to believe an FBI Special Agent and a Police Employee before I believe you. Neither of these men to my knowledge have ever failed a Polygraph, been accused of cheating on a polygraph, or co-written a book and published a web site which encourages lying and cheating and attempts to instruct people on techniques to allow them to pass a polygraph while lying. Both of these men had long term careers working for agencies where their credibility was subject to constant attack. You barely got started before you were determined to be unsuitable by the people tasked with making those decisions.  

Defamatory ??  Dr. Maschke the foundation for whatever fame or infamy you might enjoy stems from the opinions of S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood.  You should write them a thank you note and praise anyone who furthers your legend by repeating their opinions. You disclosed this information for the purpose of adding credence to your claims of poor treatment and to increase your name association with your cause. You can't really call the information you use to make yourself famous as defamatory. Well, you could, but most people would think it was a silly contention.

The final element of a slander in the legal sense is damage. Perfecting a damage claim regarding something you disclosed about yourself and occurring on a bulletin board where you control access would be somewhat problematic.

You accused the FBI of somehow revealing the results of your Polygraph to Mr. Youngblood which led him and his supervisor to accuse you of countermeasures. Like I said, if you had been slandered, you should have pursued it there.

You have repeatedly called me a liar yet you have absolutely no supporting information from anyone that I have ever lied to you. All I did was refuse to answer your question about where you could find a research paper.

You repeatedly side step the truth of the statement that there have been no scientific studies published or otherwise that both state that the countermeasures you endorse are undetectable AND use your book TLBTLD as a cited source for the procedures or techniques for producing undetectable countermeasures. You return to a quote from your book that does not answer the question. You try to use careful semantics to try to pretend that you don't encourage people to lie to relevant issues on polygraph examinations even though you know that all the questions on the test are relevant to the testing process. Even the ones that are not labeled "Relevant Questions" are by definition, relevant.

RELEVANT
Main Entry: rel·e·vant  
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-vənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up — more at relieve
Date: 1560
1 a: having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b: affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c: having social relevance
2: proportional , relative
relevant. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 3:54pm:


Yes, slander. In the sense of "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."

Quote:


It's impossible to prove a negative.  I cannot prove that I'm not a spy. But neither can you. Neither can anyone. I cannot prove that I did not use countermeasures (even though I didn't know what they even were when I was accused of using them). But neither can any polygraph examinee.

Polygraphy is notoriously unreliable and false positives are common. So on the basis of precisely what evidence do you now publicly assert that I was "caught lying and cheating?"

Quote:


While Messrs. Trimarco and Youngblood both reached conclusions that were completely wrong, unlike you, they did not publicly accuse me of anything.

Quote:


Relevant questions are about relevant issues. I've never advised anyone to lie with regard to either.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:


SLANDER????
There is easily as much or more evidence that you were caught lying and cheating than you are able to produce that you were truthful and not cheating. Like I have said before the only evidence you have to support your contention that you "wrongly failed" and were "falsely accused of cheating "is the word of a man who endorses lying and cheating.  Do I really have to post all of those quotes again that prove you endorse lying and cheating? If you believed you had a slander action you could have pursued them against S A Jack Trimarco and Ervin Youngblood

Any wet behind the ears attorney could demolish your credibility on the witness stand without breaking a sweat based on your own written words.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker. The other day you were claiming that you Quote:
. I explained to you  the difference between relevant questions and relevant issues. Now that you understand the difference you de facto acknowledge that you do in fact encourage people to lie to relevant issues by now very carefully stating that you have never encouraged anyone lie to "Relevant Questions". This allows you to continue to endorse lying to relevant issues and still maintain some semblance of denial.

Sancho Panza

Pailryder,

You write in part:

pailryder wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 12:43pm:


You didn't know 20 years ago what percentage of crimes were confessed to following a polygraph examination; you likewise do not know any more about that statistic with today's crimes and polygraph-related confessions.

By definition my assertion is true with unsolved crimes.  I believe it to be particularly true with the fishing expedition we know as polygraph screening for which ground truth is frequently never established.

pailryder wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 1:39pm:


I certainly endorse the use of polygraph countermeasures by truthful persons to protect themselves against the all-too-serious risk of a false positive outcome. And I'm in good company. As the late Professor David T. Lykken observed:

Quote:


You continue:

Quote:


Not so. The truth of the matter is that I do not know whether the information provided here on AntiPolygraph.org is used more often by liars or by truthful persons.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:


Dr Maschke

A true statement, as far as it goes, but you certainly do endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.  And, although you always deny responsibility, if you were completely truthful, you would admit that the information, which is, after all, called how to beat a polygraph (not how to pass if truthful) is used more often by liars than by truthfuls.