quickfix wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:37pm:


No Quickfix there are not two sides to EVERY polygraph story -  and certainly there are not two sides to the story about whether or not the polygraph is accurate and reliable as a "lie detector".  You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as a "reaction that indicates deception".  And since there is no such thing as a "lying reaction", it follows that there is no such thing as a "lie detector"! The reaction that you falsely claim "indicates deception" in truth and in fact only indicates nervousness – nothing more and nothing less. And for you to say that the polygraph is 95% accurate as a lie detector is an out-right lie - no "two sides" to that either - and you know it.  There  is no debating the fact that the polygraph is just a prop for an interrogator – a psychological billy club that will coerce a person into a confession. 

And I think I know why you post here.  I believe it is because you are trying desperately to stem the tide of public opinion that is rapidly turning against you.  It is very apparent from your many posts that you are a liar, a fraud, a bully and a thug - your own words betray your true nature and show what you are every time you spew forth your venomness posts.  Your anger is evidence of the fact that you are very angry about being  held accountable for your actions and you are desperately afraid that the use of the polygraph will be banned and you will never again be able to  unjustly enrich yourself by perpetrating this terribly abusive fraud. 

But I say continue posting – you are a fine example of the type of individual who administers these polygraph "tests"!  In fact, you  are a perfect spokesman for the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry. 

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

Because there are 2 sides to every polygraph story.  Why should the antipolygraph community be the only side heard from?

quickfix wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


I suspect that, in fact, you could indeed care less. But let us suppose for the sake of argument (and for the moment) that you couldn't. Why then do you even bother to post here?

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

Well Aunty, you have to admit, they are being able to convince someone that it's okay to judge, based solely on the results.

The abuse has become institutionalized.

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

Couldn't care less if you are convinced or not.

quickfix wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

They are real-world examples of the types of information that a guilty person provided. They are certainly NOT "examples of the sorts of reasons that a truthful person who exhibits significant responses to relevant questions could provide to a polygraph examiner that would mitigate any security concerns". 

If this is the best answer you can make then you are not convincing anyone. 

quickfix wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

Because you can't handle the truth.  This whole messed up situation is soaked with irony.

This is the type of non-coherent blather that they are using to get away with abusing people with the polygraph.

Notice how he didn't touch my "concerns with the question" memo from yesterday.  After I would divulge this information to the polygraph operators, they would say "okay, now other than that, what else did you do?"  Like, I'm supposed to forget that they told me that I failed the question before, and somehow suppress the fear and anxiety of what will happen if I would react again.

I was scared shitless that I was going to lose my career if I reacted.  It was like they were holding a gun to my head.  This happened 5 times in 3 years.  I have estimated that over those 20+ hours of interrogation, I was probably asked that goddamn question over 2,000 times.  It keeps me awake at night - still.

I've often explained my uncontrollable reaction as like when you are driving at night and flashing lights appear in your rearview mirror. You haven't been drinking, you aren't speeding, and you know that you haven't done anything wrong.  You can't help but get the butterflies.  Hell, I was getting butterflies on the way to the appointments - just knowing that they were going to ask me that question - and have to sit through another interrogation.

George asks some very pointed questions that have gone unanswered for too long.  Now, dickfix doesn't want to debate the issue either - anybody care to guess why?

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 7:32pm:


Yes, they are examples, they are real-world examples of the types of information that a person provides after exhibiting significant responses.  Either you are misinformed about what goes on during a DOD polygraph exam, or you refuse to accept that a truthful person can provide this type of plausible information to explain responses.  There are other examples as well.  I won't debate you on this issue, since you are not an examiner and have no first-hand knowledge of what transpires during an actual DOD polygraph exam.

Quickfix,

Thank you for the examples you provided, but they aren't examples of truthful persons who exhibited significant responses to relevant questions. In both of your example, the examinee had actually answered a relevant question untruthfully (and only came clean during post-test interrogation). So again, hypothetically speaking, what sort of explanation could a genuinely truthful person whose polygraph charts nonetheless turn out "significant response" provide that would lay to rest any security concerns?

Regarding Doug Williams' situation, yes, of course his prison sentence was real. But again — and despite having seized Doug's sales, e-mail, and phone records and having questioned many of his thousands of identified customers — the only "crimes" with which Doug was charged, and to which he pled guilty, are those that our government conceived, planned, and play-acted. Perhaps none of that disturbs you, but it doesn't seem like justice to me.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

I'll give you a couple of real-world examples, not hypotheticals:

1.  EXAMINEE has or had a romantic affair with a foreign national, When he hears the unauthorized foreign contact question, that's what he's thinking, will they find out/will my wife find out...  Instead of discussing the concern, EXAMINEE chooses to withhold the information, hence the polygraph failure.
2.  Quite common to deliberately mishandling classified information, personnel keep "souvenirs of their tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, i.e. photos, videos that are classified but have no markings, and even documents that had the classification markings cut off the top and bottom.  One Air Force Captain told me he had the video to one of his bombing runs over Iraq, kept as a souvenir.  Every time he heard the mishandle question, that what his concern was.  Again, he chose (initially) not to discuss it because he didn't want to have to turn it in.
George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:


Really, imaginary crime? Were the prison bars and guards at Florence FCI imaginary too?

Here is the second attachment from my last post...

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:


Well said George. And you are quite correct in retrospect I should have refused to help the undercover agent. But you were there and you heard how pitiful he sounded and how much he begged me to help him. I'll give him this much – that undercover agent should get an Academy award for his acting ability. 

The attached "reasonable information" was provided in writing to my chain of command and the SSO shortly after my second interrogation.  It was also included in my appeal - which was also ignored.

The truth is, and hard as it is to get this across, there are many reasons for someone to emit a physiological response.  I've said this many, many times before - fear of failing produces a very strong uncontrollable reaction.  On their polygraph machine, it must look very much like a lie.

For what it's worth, the only facet of my DOD OIG complaint that they actually investigated, was whether or not I had committed a security violation with any of the" reasonable information" which I provided (see the second attachment)

Quickfix,

Regarding John M.'s situation, I can't agree with you. John M. actually did, to the best of his ability, attempt to explain why he might have reacted to a relevant question. As I recall, it had to do with sloppy handling of classified information that, with command knowledge and approval, was routine in his workplace.

Speaking hypothetically, could you provide any examples of the sorts of reasons that a truthful person who exhibits significant responses to relevant questions could provide to a polygraph examiner that would mitigate any security concerns?

Regarding Doug Williams' situation, I don't think he let "his own arrogance do him in," as you put it. In a recorded conversation with an undercover federal agent (J.D. Castillo) that was played in the courtroom, Doug repeatedly refused to help the undercover agent, but the agent would not take "no" for an answer and pandered to Doug's religious sympathies. See my reporting on the 2nd day of the trial here:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/14/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-2-doug-william...

Now, if you were to counter that nonetheless, Doug could have still chosen a different (and better) course of action, I would agree, and I think Doug, in retrospect, would too. But the fact remains that the only "crimes" to which Doug pled guilty are imaginary, victimless ones stage-managed by our government.

And again, this shows that our government cares very much about what Doug Williams is saying about polygraphy. Do you disagree?

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:35pm:

That's the $64,000 question.  The only person who can answer that question is John M., not me, not you, not the Examiner.  John M.  He was given ample opportunity to provide a reason.  He chose not to.  And that's what did him in.   

As far as Doug goes, he let his own arrogance do him in.  Entrapment, no entrapment, doesn't matter.  He committed a felony, and suffered the consequences.

quickfix wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:


Quickfix, perhaps I was insufficiently clear. My point was that the U.S. government orchestrated Operation Lie Busters in an effort to entrap Doug Williams in the absence of any prior evidence that he had committed any crime. And as Doug has pointed out, the only crimes to which he ultimately pled guilty are those that our government set up.

The fact that our government so feared what Doug Williams has to say about polygraphy that it set out to entrap him is ample evidence that it takes what he has to say on this topic very seriously indeed.

quickfix wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:


Thank you also, quickfix, for explaining your rationale for calling John M. a threat to national security. I don't question your good faith on this, but I sincerely think that you attach to polygraph screening a validity that it does not possess.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that, as he avers, John M. has not had any involvement in espionage, terrorism, sabotage, unreported foreign contacts, or the deliberate mishandling of classified information. He's an honest public servant who has answered all relevant questions truthfully. What sort of information concerning the causes of his responses might he be able to provide that you would find reasonable? Is there any?

quickfix wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:


Not that I give a big flying flatus what you think Quickfuk, but I will tell you that the "evidence" that the  Government presented in  my case was evidence of only one thing – a set-up by a group of polygraph operators who were enraged at having been confronted with the truth about the evil polygraph industry. As to why I plead guilty – I really had no option. My POS attorney told me at lunch on the first day of trial that he did not know how to offer a defense. In an adversarial proceeding if you cannot present a defense, you're screwed. So I told him to make the best deal he could and then I had to live with it. But as I have said before I was imprisoned for doing something that you and all your cohorts have always said was impossible for me to do – teach someone to beat the polygraph. My conviction proves the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector"!  And it was worth two years in prison to finally be able to prove that – and to prove that the government knows that! 

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:05am:


C'mon George- In the absence of evidence???  HE PLED GUILTY!!!  YOU WERE THERE! YOU SAW AND HEARD IT YOURSELF!!!  A guilty plea is the same as if he were tried and convicted.  No one else made the decision to plead guilty.  No one pleads guilty in the absence of evidence.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:08am:


On the basis that he did not pass 5 CI polygraphs If 5 is indeed correct).  When you don't provide reasonable information concerning the cause of your responses, you leave the government no recourse but to assume the worst.  Involvement in espionage, terrorism, sabotage, unreported foreign contacts, or deliberately mishandling classified information.  Those are the issues.   The government will take the prudent course of action, which is to remove the person from access, and neutralize the threat.  And regardless of what John M. may think, the IC takes the same course of action;  military or civilian, no pass, no access.  As it should be.

quickfix wrote on Oct 16^th, 2017 at 7:00pm:


Quickfix, on the basis of what evidence do you assert that John M. was a threat to national security?

quickfix wrote on Oct 14^th, 2017 at 6:26pm:


Quickfix, perhaps you are correct that the government doesn't give a shit what Doug Williams thinks. But it cares very much about what he has written and said about polygraphy. It cares so much so that, in the absence of any evidence that he had committed any crime, it orchestrated Operation Lie Busters in order to formulate a crime for which to go after him. And it cares so much that it seeks to prevent him from providing individuals with training on how to pass a polygraph "test" during the next three years.

The U.S. government also cares so much about what Doug Williams has to say about polygraphy that a major part of the training the U.S. government provides to federal polygraph operators about countermeasures is devoted to his manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph."

quickfix wrote on Oct 16^th, 2017 at 7:00pm:

Nothing libelous about it.  You were a threat to national security, and you've been neutralized.  The system works as it's supposed to.

No quickfix, the system does not work at least the system that relies on the fraud of the polygraph. That system is corrupt and broken and needs to be destroyed. And when you  talk  about a threat to national security – you and your fellow charlatans are a grave threat to our national security because you have sold the government a bill of goods and you know you are lying – and soon everyone else will know too!

John M. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2017 at 7:18pm:

Nothing libelous about it.  You were a threat to national security, and you've been neutralized.  The system works as it's supposed to.Wandersmann wrote on Oct 15^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

And the Constitution was written by whom?  Oh, yeah, representatives, aka government.

John M. wrote on Oct 15^th, 2017 at 7:18pm:

   
Same thing with me.........TS/SCI for 33 years without as much as a verbal reprimand.  I just got my personnel records via FOIPA and it is over 200 pages of exceptional performance appraisals and letters of commendation with cash awards.  2 hours on the polygraph washed it all away.   

Sodom and Gomorrah was supposedly destroyed because Lot could not find 5 good men in the entire region.  We've got the same problem.  We need a couple of honorable attorneys and one honorable judge to put an end to this fraud and apparently there are none to be found.  If anyone ever gets anything going with the courts or Congress, let me know.  I guarantee that my story will win jurors.   

damn, good question - one that deserves an answer.  Since the use of the polygraph within the government is unregulated, it will largely depend on the security office you are dealing with.

At DIA for instance, they are supposed to follow DOD policy. If your company's contract involves the Department of Defense, I suggest you see DODI 5210.91 (attached).  Under this policy, you would not be granted initial access, assignment, or detail if you refused the polygraph interrogation.

This policy also dictates however, that no unfavorable administrative action (to include access, employment, assignment, and detail determinations) shall be taken based solely on the polygraph "results".  So, one would assume that your current job would be safe.

Oh yeah, unfavorable administrative actions are also defined by CFR Title 32, Part 154.

At the DIA Office of Security, the Insider Threat Task Force operates in conjunction with the Credibility Assessments Program, and the job of hunting insiders is a lot easier using the polygraph.  I voluntarily sat through five interrogations in three years because I understood that if I refused, I would be punished.

I supposedly "failed" two of them - the three others were determined to be "no opinion".  They came one day and walked me out of the building -  like a criminal.  They took my badge and all my accesses.  My former co-workers were told not to associate with me.  I was libelously labeled a threat to security and a vulnerability.  I believe they knew that they couldn't fire me, so they banished me - sending me involuntarily to an unclassified job 1,000 miles away.

I had a TS/SCI for 34 years without a security related incident.  I completed six successful SSBI background checks.  This isn't supposed to happen in a free and honorable society.

I would be very concerned, as you are.  I hope you continue to ask questions, just be aware that you may draw attention from the counterintelligence nazis.  They'll have all your accesses pulled and you will be of no use to your company.

Oh yeah, about that reg.....

What I meant was, if you are currently working at a job like Boeing with a Secret or TS clearance, and you refuse the SCI -poly opportunity, will they fire you? Or why not just keep you employed on your Secret or TS non-poly job? All you are doing is refusing an advancement opportunity. Anyone personally experince something like this?