I read with interest the comments in which the writer accused you of treason for your instructions for defeating the new PCASS tool to be used in a war zone on possible enemy personnel as a method of screening.

Your response was about what I expected as were the comments of your allies on this site.  Your "reasoning", however for your "instructions" was a bit confusing.  You state that you exposed the inadequacies of the instrument so that the soldiers who use it will understand that it doesn’t work.  How is that relevant?  Even if the instrument is less than perfect or flawed, how are you doing anything for Americans by exposing a method by which our enemies can possibly defeat the tool that is being used?

Are you familiar with General George Patton’s creation of the “First US Army Group”?  It was a cardboard and canvas “fake” tank division created and manned to fool the Germans into believing that Calais would be the primary invasion site.  It was quite successful.  I can assure you that the cardboard tanks were incapable of firing a shot at the enemy yet they performed extremely well.

We are extremely fortunate that you weren’t around in World War II.  I’m sure you would have sent a communication out to the world to let them know that the tanks were really cardboard and that they don’t really work.

Your hatred for polygraph has driven you to a point that you are willing to jeopardize the lives of soliders in battle in an effort to make your point.  Let’s face facts Mr. Maschke, it’s you who have exposed yourself and its your genitals that are showing here.  You really screwed up this time and it’s apparent you know it based upon the quickness with which you relegated your comments and the response it received off of  the front pages and back into the archives of your website.

Okay, Mr. Webb, since you appear to be a guru of polygraph science, please, may I have a minute of your august person's time?

Will you answer the question I have about my polygraph tests? You wil find it in "Share Your Polygraph Experience."  

I am sure you could give me your apparent and exceptionally well qualified opinion.

Thank you for your time.

skip.webb wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 2:39pm:

I read with interest the comments in which the writer accused you of treason for your instructions for defeating the new PCASS tool to be used in a war zone on possible enemy personnel as a method of screening. Your response was about what I expected as were the comments of your allies on this site.  Your "reasoning", however for your "instructions" was a bit confusing.  You state that you exposed the inadequacies of the instrument so that the soldiers who use it will understand that it doesn’t work.  How is that relevant?  Even if the instrument is less than perfect or flawed, how are you doing anything for Americans by exposing a method by which our enemies can possibly defeat the tool that is being used? Are you familiar with General George Patton’s creation of the “First US Army Group”?  It was a cardboard and canvas “fake” tank division created and manned to fool the Germans into believing that Calais would be the primary invasion site.  It was quite successful.  I can assure you that the cardboard tanks were incapable of firing a shot at the enemy yet they performed extremely well. We are extremely fortunate that you weren’t around in World War II.  I’m sure you would have sent a communication out to the world to let them know that the tanks were really cardboard and that they don’t really work. Your hatred for polygraph has driven you to a point that you are willing to jeopardize the lives of soliders in battle in an effort to make your point.  Let’s face facts Mr. Maschke, it’s you who have exposed yourself and its your genitals that are showing here.  You really screwed up this time and it’s apparent you know it based upon the quickness with which you relegated your comments and the response it received off of  the front pages and back into the archives of your website.

Here we go!! If you can't change the fact that your silly machines don't work then, FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG!! That will get some to agree with you regardless of reason.

In an atempt to shed some light on your rediculous statements ( not to change a simple mind that would think it up)
The difference between your comparision with Pattons program and Polygraph is that THE MILITARY IS ACCUALLY RELYING ON THE POLY RESULTS!!!  I'm sure this fact escapes you.
I think George ponting out that this machine is even less effective than a full Polygraph (which... well we know how effective that is !) is protecting our country and troops. Lets' give our forces technology that accually works. If the Polygraph is a method of screening people in war then guess what we don't need water boarding just give the troops a crystal ball so they can find out anything they want.
But please continue to post since you show the ingnorance that pervails in the Polygraph community. ::)

Dear Mr. Webb,

If General Eisenhower had been under the delusion that the fictitious 1st U.S. Army Group was a real one and had led Generals Omar Bradley (commander of the 12th U.S. Army Group) and Bernard Montgomery (commander of the British-Canadian 21st Army Group) to believe that they could rely on its support in combat, then it would have been the duty of any patriot with knowledge of the General's madness to sound the alarm.

The situation with the Department of Defense's new hand-held lie detector, the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System (PCASS), is similar. The Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, which came up with the device, is under the delusion that the PCASS can be relied on to screen liars from truth tellers, and has made such representations to other components of the Department of Defense. But the PCASS is a pseudoscientific sham. DACA put it through unrealistic trials that don't even begin to approach field conditions. And as I pointed out, the PCASS can be easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures. In this case, the opposing forces (Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents) know (and have known for years) that lie detectors are a sham.

Here again is my warning to U.S. troops regarding DACA's new pocket lie detector:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hmEumtfvk

If you, a federal polygraph examiner and past president of the American Polygraph Association, truly believe that my sounding the alarm is treason, then please spell my name correctly when you make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Maschke, You missed my point.  You are not an expert in credibility assessment nor did you conduct the research.  You may have an informed opinion about the equipment but it is merely your opinion.  Let’s suppose that you had an opinion about some other piece of equipment in use by our forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Maybe a IED detector or a night vision device.  Let's also suppose that you believed (in your opinion) the equipment was not perfect or had some weakness.  Would you print out and distribute to the enemy, the instructions for circumventing the IED detection device or some method by which one could negate the effectiveness of the night vision device?  Suppose the armor on our vehicles was less than perfect or had some flaw.  Would you provide our enemy with instructions on where to attack the vehicle or how to take advantage of the weakness?

That's exactly what you are doing now and that to me is an act certainly not taken by a patriot but an enemy.

George,

I know you have a passion for what you’re doing. I just believe you’re going about it the wrong way, not that it would make any difference anyway since polygraph utilization appears to be on the increase.  But, just out of curiosity, and hypothetically speaking of course, let’s say that you were to sit for yet another polygraph examination.  Yes I know, that would never happen and I understand that.  But, if you were to sit for another polygraph examination, would you answer the following relevant questions with a “yes” or with a “no”

1.  Have you provided any information on any public media that could aid any enemy of the United States?
2.  Have you provided any information on any public media that could aid any convicted child molester?
3.  Have you provided any information on any public media that could be beneficial to any enemy of the United States?

This is, of course, just a hypothetical scenario because we all know that it won’t happen in the real world.  Much like a movie scene is not real, neither is this.

Quote:

Would you provide our enemy with instructions on where to attack the vehicle or how to take advantage of the weakness?  That's exactly what you are doing now and that to me is an act certainly not taken by a patriot but an enemy.

Unless you've been under a rock since 2001, you may recall that training manuals recovered in Afghanistan in 2002 had an entire chapter devoted to lie detection, how it's supposed to work and how to defeat it.  Whether or not any of that is accurate isn't the point.  The point is that community of people with whom we are at "war" has drawn its conclusions about lie detection and distributed it widely.  The only thing that's new and different about the PCASS is that it comes in a cute, handheld package.  But its makers still purport that it's a lie detector, and it will be just as ineffective as a full-sized model against anyone who believes it's just a prop.

George's opinion is indeed his opinion, and yours is of no more or less value than his or mine.  Without hard, scientific data to prove one way or the other, the entire field if credibility assessment is nothing but opinion, even if it has been put in the form of a computer program and sold to the government at a ridiculous price.  (And that's my opinion.)

--Auntie

If I'm understanding the dissenters well enough, it appears that soldiers unknowingly using lie detectors that are easily fooled is better than the truth about these devices coming out?

Thats insane.

The enemy and/or criminals already know just how unreliable lie detectors are. The only people fooled by happy-happy-joy-joy BS Media as to the effectiveness of these devices is the soldiers trusting their lives to them and the mis-informed public regarding the effectiveness of the devices.

I find it stunning that so many people here are lining up to call this man unpatriotic when the entire point of the exercise was to inform those in most need of the info that the devices ARE NOT reliable ways of determining truth from lies.

To the folks attacking the lack of testing, whats the point of testing the devices? After all, if these devices are as good as advertised, they are either unbeatable, or nearly so, rendering testing or lack thereof points moot.

Pick one folks..

Either the devices work well rendering the ability to fool them moot

or

The devices DO NOT work well and this info should have been provided by the govt and/or manuf., as opposed to a private citizen taking time out to post this info. Sadly, with Bush/Cheney's credibility so far down in the toilet due to their repeated and numerous outright lies, are we supposed to trust their words on the effectiveness of the devices?..HA

You dont get it both ways.. even in the world of Bush Hypocrisy...

Try again and this time think thru your arguements before you attack the man.

Lastly, the Patton paper-tiger army used to distract germany on D-day is not a fair analogy. No one was using his army to fight with, just to suck german tank divisions away from the point of attack. These lie detectors are not being used as a distraction, but as the actual fighting army's tools.

If the lie detectors were empty boxes, w/ little LEDs on them, your analogy *might* be closer to target...

Rahn

Auntie Polygraph wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 6:40pm:

Quote: Would you provide our enemy with instructions on where to attack the vehicle or how to take advantage of the weakness?  That's exactly what you are doing now and that to me is an act certainly not taken by a patriot but an enemy. Unless you've been under a rock since 2001, you may recall that training manuals recovered in Afghanistan in 2002 had an entire chapter devoted to lie detection, how it's supposed to work and how to defeat it.  Whether or not any of that is accurate isn't the point.  The point is that community of people with whom we are at "war" has drawn its conclusions about lie detection and distributed it widely.  The only thing that's new and different about the PCASS is that it comes in a cute, handheld package.  But its makers still purport that it's a lie detector, and it will be just as ineffective as a full-sized model against anyone who believes it's just a prop. George's opinion is indeed his opinion, and yours is of no more or less value than his or mine.  Without hard, scientific data to prove one way or the other, the entire field if credibility assessment is nothing but opinion, even if it has been put in the form of a computer program and sold to the government at a ridiculous price.  (And that's my opinion.) --Auntie

Sorry Auntie, you, like the other Maschke minions just don't get it.  This is the second time I have heard some version of "the enemy could have gotten this information in other places."  That, my friend is completely irrelevant to the conversation.  Most of the terrorist "foot soldiers" we are dealing with are NOT the "best and the brightest" of the terrorist world.  They are foot soldiers, nothing more.  To Osama and his inner circle, they are nothing more then "cannon fodder".  Remember the video we found that showed Osama laughing over the stupid hijackers in the rear of the planes on 9/11 not knowing the pilots were going to actually fly the planes into the WTC???

Well in this case, the enemy was about to be faced with a device they had never seen before.  They would be unsure, afraid of the possibility that maybe these American infidels would be able to look into their thoughts.  Oh no, some would wonder, what to do, what to do…???

Of course, once word got out this device was being used, the smarter of them would have started looking around, trying to check it out (just like the cardboard tanks), but that would have taken TIME and TIME is what we need in combat.  Even then, without anything directly addressing this new “truth machine”, they would had to take the time to research, collect, analyze, and disseminate, which is by the way, expensive, difficult, requires resources, and takes lots and lots of TIME, time we needed to get a couple of steps ahead…

But oh no, not in this case.  In this case, Mr. George Maschke, our expatriate friend, holed up safely in the Netherlands, did the job for them.  In very little time at all (because he obviously doesn't have anything else in his miserable life) he researched, collected, analyzed, and disseminated to the enemy what (in his opinion) was the very information they needed to use to defeat an American intelligence gathering tool.  He did it deliberately, and maliciously, knowing full well that this website is one of the first places his Arab friends would come to looking for the answers.

And what was Mr. Maschke's response when I asked him who he thought he was "helping" by publishing this information?  He said something about the "emperior having no clothes.'  What the hell does that have to do with him knowingly providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States???!!!

I repeat my earlier assertion.  George Maschke is a traitorous snake, so wrapped up in his blind goal to end the use of anything that even resembles polygraph, that he is willing to risk the lives of every American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan to do it.

I think I am going to be sick...

skip.webb wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 6:06pm:

Mr. Maschke, You missed my point.

No I didn't. You made an analogy between strategic deception in combat operations and DACA's new hand-held lie detector. But that analogy was inapposite, and I replied with a more appropriate one.


Quote:

You are not an expert in credibility assessment nor did you conduct the research.

I don't claim to be an expert in credibility assessment, but I do know a fair deal about lie detectors (and co-authored a book on the topic).

It would appear that the good people at the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment are no experts at assessing credibility, nor at conducting credible scientific research. Note that to understand the results of a scientific research report, one need not have conducted the research oneself. That's kinda sorta the whole idea behind publishing research.

The bottom line is that DACA has not demonstrated that the PCASS will reliably work at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions, or that it is robust against countermeasures.

As Professor Stephen Fienberg, who headed the National Academy of Science's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, told MSNBC, "Sending these instruments into the field in Iraq and Afghanistan without serious scientific assessment, and for use by untrained personnel, is a mockery of what we advocated in our report."


Quote:

You may have an informed opinion about the equipment but it is merely your opinion.  Let’s suppose that you had an opinion about some other piece of equipment in use by our forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Maybe a IED detector or a night vision device.  Let's also suppose that you believed (in your opinion) the equipment was not perfect or had some weakness.  Would you print out and distribute to the enemy, the instructions for circumventing the IED detection device or some method by which one could negate the effectiveness of the night vision device?  Suppose the armor on our vehicles was less than perfect or had some flaw.  Would you provide our enemy with instructions on where to attack the vehicle or how to take advantage of the weakness?

Your analogies are again inapposite. PCASS is not just "less than perfect." It's an utter pseudoscientific sham, and as I have explained elsewhere, DACA has fraudulently overstated its accuracy.


Quote:

That's exactly what you are doing now and that to me is an act certainly not taken by a patriot but an enemy.

I think your judgment is clouded by the self-interest associated with your status as a polygraph examiner. But again, if you really think I've committed treason, please feel free to post here, for the edification of all, a copy of your criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

So the argument against George's posting of that info amounts to:

Military people risking their lives relying on a paper-tiger device are better off than when they used no device at all?

That makes perfect Neo-Con sense. Instead of coming up with a device that does work, we'll just send out the broken one and try to keep word from getting to the enemy about them..

From the logic presented here in the "against" column, apparently, a gas gauge that reads randomly is better than none or a functioning one.

Thats brilliance on par with the genius that got us into Iraq over imaginary WMDs..

Maybe we should send over Scientology E-meters. They are about as effective as these devices and since we're just trying to "scare ingnorant natives" into believing our magic juju, would likely be just
as effective..

Rahn

You are new here so you have to understand that ploygraphers can't/won't debate the "technical" aspects of their machine (can't give away their secrets) so they receive TDO's to come on here and attempt to trash George. Evident in this thread. They are not intelligent enough to realize they are trashing themselves. They are on here during working hours, probably using computers funded by our taxes, bullholing our money and our crooked poluted-crats in D.C. won't do anything about it because they are doing the same thing.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the feds thought George was aiding the enemy, in any way, they would be on him like stink on shit no matter what country he's in. This website has been up, I believe, over eight years.

skip.webb wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 6:06pm:

You may have an informed opinion about the equipment but it is merely your opinion.

Mr. Webb.

Assuming for a moment that what you said above is true, since when is stating an opinion an act of treason?

nopolycop wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 8:50pm:

skip.webb wrote on Apr 18th, 2008 at 6:06pm:  You may have an informed opinion about the equipment but it is merely your opinion.   Mr. Webb. Assuming for a moment that what you said above is true, since when is stating an opinion an act of treason?

C'mon, I would like to believe you aren't THAT stupid.  I have no doubt you are fully aware the act of treason in this case, is not in any opinion voiced by George or anyone else.  It is in the collection, analysis, production, and deliberate dissemination of U.S. intelligence information by Mr. Maschke to a website he himself has stated is frequently read by the enemies of our country...  Remember, Mr. Maschke is (or was) by trade an intelligence officer.  He knows by now the gravity of what he has done.  As I said before, contrary to George's ravings, this is not about our soldiers, police applicants, or even child molesters.  It is about only one thing.  George Maschke's eternal bruised ego. 8-)

Good night...

nonombre wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 7:06pm:

Sorry Auntie, you, like the other Maschke minions just don't get it.

Calling me a "Maschke minion" does absolutely nothing to further the credibility of your argument.  You'll notice that I didn't bother calling you a "polygraph putz."  Could you explain why you find that sort of behavior necessary?


Quote:

This is the second time I have heard some version of "the enemy could have gotten this information in other places."  That, my friend is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

"The enemy" has had the information published in Mawsu'at al-jihad since before 2002, when a copy was acquired and translated.  I would imagine that there are as many copies of that floating around the terrorist world as there are copies of Southern Living on Georgia coffee tables.  In other words, the cat is not only out of the bag, he's lived a long, happy, post-bag life and died of old age.  That's what makes it relevant.

Your argument would seem to be that if we convince ourselves that "the enemy" doesn't know what the PCASS is, it must be so whether it is or not.  That's not what I'd call a winning strategy.  A good interrogator is mindful that his subject may very well know what the device is and isn't revealing that fact.  Of course, if the device were able tell if a subject were lying with perfect certainty, that issue could be resolved very quickly and the remainder of the interrogation would be a breeze.


Quote:

Most of the terrorist "foot soldiers" we are dealing with are NOT the "best and the brightest" of the terrorist world.  They are foot soldiers, nothing more.

Of course.  The foot soldiers get given one mission, and if they return they may get another one.  Good operational security practice would dictate that they be sufficiently insulated from those planning their activities.  We don't send our generals out to kick in doors in Basrah, why should they?  Those that are the "best and brightest" are the ones who end up in a position to know something of real value.  They've read the manual and are intelligent enough to realize that something that someone says can tell if they're lying probably can't.  I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed never got anywhere near a lie detector when he was interrogated.  Why do you think that might be?


Quote:

Well in this case, the enemy was about to be faced with a device they had never seen before.  They would be unsure, afraid of the possibility that maybe these American infidels would be able to look into their thoughts.  Oh no, some would wonder, what to do, what to do…???

"The enemy" was about to be faced with a variation on a device they'd seen before.  The only way an interrogator can make good use of a lie detector is if the subject believes it actually works, and the only way to do that is to say "this device can tell me if you're lying."


Quote:

Even then, without anything directly addressing this new “truth machine”, they would had to take the time to research, collect, analyze, and disseminate, which is by the way, expensive, difficult, requires resources, and takes lots and lots of TIME, time we needed to get a couple of steps ahead…

The advantage the PCASS has over some other equipment is that it's compact and can be deployed en masse.  Unfortunately, doing so solves the dissemination problem because the process of making a decision about it happens multiple times in parallel over multiple, smaller areas.  These guys aren't out preparing PowerPoint presentations for their Tuesday Jihad intelligence briefing, they're bringing back news of what they encountered for those directing their actions to sort out.  You're thinking like someone who's part of a large, bureaucratic intelligence organization.


Quote:

But oh no, not in this case.  In this case, Mr. George Maschke, our expatriate friend, holed up safely in the Netherlands, did the job for them.

George is, to the best of my knowledge still an American citizen.  (George, please correct me if I'm wrong.)  I am reasonably confident that if the United States thought it had a sufficient case of treason, he would be no more safely holed up in Holland than Cleveland.  If he has committed crimes as heinous as you describe, I fail to understand why you, as a patriotic American, are wasting valuable time here on this message board and aren't spending every spare moment making sure the government brings this insufferable cur to justice.

This story was given wide exposure by the American news media with nary a mention of the discussion on this site.  How come you're not calling for Brian Williams' head on a pike?


Quote:

And what was Mr. Maschke's response when I asked him who he thought he was "helping" by publishing this information?  He said something about the "emperior having no clothes.'

Allow me to draw a parallel from cryptography, a field with real science behind it:  if the algorithm is secure, disclosure poses no threat.  If this device actually worked reliably, it wouldn't matter if ads for it were plastered on every billboard in Baghdad.  The emperor may have clothes, but they could very well be limited to a pair of skimpy undies.


Quote:

I repeat my earlier assertion.  George Maschke is a traitorous snake, so wrapped up in his blind goal to end the use of anything that even resembles polygraph...

Since we're busy hurling unrelated insults, your grammar blows chunks.  You're using the word "polygraph" as if it were a proper noun.  It's not, and use of a non-proper noun requires an article beforehand.  The only people I've ever heard refer to the polygraph without an article are people who are polygraphers or are otherwise connected to the field of lie detection.  I must conclude that you are one of those people.  Am I correct?


Quote:

I think I am going to be sick...

Please come back after you've finished.  Your auntie finds you amusing.

--Auntie

P.S.:  I'd also like to add that for those who claim what is being discussed here constitutes "intelligence information" are perhaps barking up the wrong tree.  The government does something special with intelligence information (which, by the way actually has a legal definition):  they classify it.  Is there classified material posted anywhere on this site?

Quote:

C'mon, I would like to believe you aren't THAT stupid.  I have no doubt you are fully aware the act of treason in this case, is not in any opinion voiced by George or anyone else.  It is in the collection, analysis, production, and deliberate dissemination of U.S. intelligence information by Mr. Maschke to a website he himself has stated is frequently read by the enemies of our country...

So put up or shut up.  Make a call to the FBI, let them investigate.  Then I am sure GM will let us in on the final outcome.

Is there any reason to believe that FBI agents have any more faith in the polygraph then us False-positive have?  They are probably more aware than any of us of the unreliability of the test, and wouldn't take the results of some "Port-a-poly (potty?)" on a suspected terrorist anyway!

T.M.,

I think "port-a-poly" is a very apt nickname for the "Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System!"

[smiley=wink.gif]

What George essentially did was warn the troops using this equipment that it is not accurate and that they should not rely upon it.  It is too easily defeated by countermeasures, and even without countermeasures it is not accurate or reliable.

If the military had been issued mine detectors that didn’t work, or that worked sixty percent of the time, would George be acting in a treasonous manner by warning service members not to rely on their new mine detectors?

It sounds like the pro-polygraph people are trying to claim it would be better if the U.S. military could have operated under the assumption that none of their enemies were capable of successfully defeating the handheld polygraph.

Now that the service members know how easy it is for the enemy to defeat the handheld polygraph, are those service members in a better or worse position?  Now that they know a terrorist could plant a bomb and then easily pass the “lie detector” test, are they likely to be safer or in more dire jeopardy?  

The information George posted is not classified, and is freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it.  It is ridiculous to assume that were it not for this web site no one on the planet would have any idea that polygraph countermeasures exist, must less be able to read anything about how to use them.

If a soldier on the ground in Iraq, puzzled because he or she was getting results from their “lie detector” that flew in the face of reason and logic, had done a little research and then posted the exact same information on the Internet, does anyone believe that soldier would be accused of treason?  Would a soldier warning others how easy it is for anyone to defeat the “lie detector” so that no one puts their lives or anyone else’s lives in danger through reliance on a test that can be so easily defeated or confounded be considered as working against U.S. interests?  I think not.

Suppose the Department of Defense issued instructions to question a terrorist and then watch their eyes when they answered, because if they look to the right you will know they are constructing a lie.  If someone like George posted that anyone aware of that technique can easily control his or her reaction and render the test worthless, therefore the test should not be relied upon, would he be acting irresponsibly then?  Would he be committing treason by warning service members not to rely on the results of such an easily defeated test?  Again, I think not.

I think they are basically putting economics (their industry) before security (how ironic) and the safety of the troops.

TC

Hmmmmm. Anyone notice how many hits an "attempt to trash George" thread brings? Anyone think at least 90% of those hits are polygraphers? Anyone think, when these threads appear, the poster sends out a net APB directed to his brethern and sistern saying "Check out anti-poly site. I just trashed George" ?Hmmmmmmm !! ??

twoblock,

90% of the people on this board are polygraph examiners....duh?! ::)

Sackett

Twoblock,

While a good many polygraphers do regularly visit AntiPolygraph.org, the unusually large number of views associated some message threads is typically the result of their having been linked to on other websites. For example, the thread about PCASS's vulnerability to countermeasures is presently linked to at Cryptome.org.

Polygraphers don't give a damn about ruining people's lives; why would they give a damn about ending people's lives with their grandiose claims?  They make more money the more people believe that the polygraph is as awesome as they say.  So what if a bunch of people in the army (probably not good enough to be real polygraphers!) get killed?

Polygrapher math:  Other people dying + money for you = a great deal! (Just be sure to cloak yourself in self righteousness)

I'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused.
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.

wrote on May 29^th, 2008 at 9:56pm:

I'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology. I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused. Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system. Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.

Arabs being wrongly convicted of what?  As I understand it, the use of PCASS is to determine who the US military was to give (more) belief and trust to; not as a means of convicting anyone of anything. Iraq/Afghanistan has not given up their autonomy and we are not an occupying colonialist power.

I do appreciate the fact you do not see us as blood soaked death dealers.  I guess that is a step up from what some have called us... :)

Sackett

wrote on May 29^th, 2008 at 9:56pm:

I'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology. I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused. Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system. Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.

As I mentioned in another thread about the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System,  I am deeply concerned that a red light on the Port-A-Poly could become a green light for "enhanced interrogation techniques," the U.S. Government's euphemism for torture.

I don't know whether the PCASS is actually being used in the field, but I have yet to see any indication that it has been shelved. As mentioned on the blog, the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA) sent an instructor to Afghanistan in late April of this year to train soldiers in the use of the PCASS. That instructor (James Waller) seems himself to be deeply deluded about the PCASS's capabilities, telling a reporter, "Red means the subject was dishonest and lying to the security questions; green means they passed the test; yellow means the device did not get enough information to make a call so we need to rerun the test."

No reliance of any kind should be made on the color-coded blinkings of DACA's "traffic light of truth."

I still don't see how polygraphers can accuse George of treason while still being consistent with their other statements.  It seems to me that they are making two sets of statements and that it is not possible for both to be true at the same time.

(1) The PCASS is (a) highly accurate and (b) very difficult, if not practically impossible, to beat.  AND
(2) George is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by saying that (a) the PCASS is not accurate and (b) it can be beaten relatively easily by doing such-and-such

Now, if (1)(a) is true, that it is very accurate, how is it treason to falsely say that it is not accurate?  That's not giving aid to the enemy, though it might give them some false comfort--until they find out just how accurate it really is.  I could elaborate on this, but I think it's pretty obvious that that would not rise to the level of treason.  It'd be a much greater encouragement to insurgents to think that our military will pull out of the country shortly, but people who advocate a quick withdraw aren't traitors.

And if statement (1)(b) is true, that the PCASS can't be easily defeated, then the information that George is providing is not aiding the enemy since the information is invalid.  Maybe it might encourage them to think they can defeat the great satan's silly toys, but following the information, if it is false--as you claim it is--will hinder, not help them.

I don't see how it is possible to say that George is committing treason under any reasonable definition of the term (and if a definition would make a large percentage of the American population traitors it is almost certainly not reasonable) unless the information he is providing and disseminating about (a) the accuracy of the PCASS and/or (b) it's ability to be defeated, in general, and in particular by the methods he also provides.

Am I going wrong someplace?  Can someone explain how he is giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy if his claims about PCASS accuracy and susceptibility are false?

     Hi,

 The answer to your question is simple in that under the law   ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not.  Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA.  Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line.  He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors.  Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!   ;)  It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.  

Quote:

The answer to your question is simple in that under the law   ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not.  Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA.  Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line.  He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors.  Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!   Wink  It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.

Another feeble attempt by an anonymous coward to slander GM.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 5:32am:

The answer to your question is simple in that under the law   ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not.  Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA.  Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line.  He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors.  Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!   ;)  It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.

Okay, so your argument is that George is attempting to give aid and comfort to the enemy.  That is, the main purpose of his two acts (saying the PCASS is not accurate and that it can be beaten by such-and-such a method) is to help the enemy.  I don't think that claim withstands any scrutiny.

Examining all of George's actions, I don't think you could come to any conclusion other than that George is motivated by a desire to end the widespread use of the polygraph as it is now used.  As he advocates doing this through purely legal, non-violent means, his pursuit of this goal is perfectly legal and protected by the first amendment.  I think it'd even be reasonable to say that George thinks that, far from hurting U.S. security and interests, eliminating the dependence on the polygraph as it is now used would enhance U.S. security.  

Now, you can absolutely argue those two points and say that the way the polygraph is now used is great and must be continued and that changing it at all would damage U.S. security.  But I see no evidence whatsoever that George wants to do anything that he believes would hurt America and/or help terrorists.  So, you can say that the effect of his actions would be to hurt the U.S., but you can't say (unless you have an argument that hasn't occurred to me, in which case please share it) that that is his intent.

Basically, you can argue that an act is immoral either because of (1) the effect of that act or (2) the motives behind the act.  So far as the PCASS is concerned, you can't argue that George's actions will be harmful unless you admit that he is right about how inaccurate it is and/or how easy it is to beat.  And I don't see how you can argue that his motive is to hurt the United States and/or help terrorists.  But if you want to try, please do so.

Also, you say that he has "translat[ed] CM's into the language of the enemy."  Perhaps you are referring to the Al Qaeda manual that George translated from "the language of the enemy" into English?  If so, you need to be careful not to base your arguments on inaccurate information.  If not, I'd appreciate knowing what you are referring to.

     T.M.,

 Honestly, you are all over this board and your obsession oozes out to where even the occasional reader on this board would assume that it may have in fact been your psychological, rather than your polygraph, which kept you from obtaining your goals.  Plain and Simple, you just may have not measured up above and beyond your polygraph as in what you write is so negative and vile that I wonder how you get through the day.  Maybe your better off as an Amway distributor or something, rather than bringing your crap attitudes into government.  Tone it down, take a Dale Carnegie course, and maybe go out and find a job which can live with YOU !!!  I don't know what that job is, but it's not in an environment where others need to stay positive and focussed like the Feds as an Intelligence type.  What other professions have you considered or applied for ?  Your perpetutation of your claimed victimization is getting thin, as you have NOT moved on and are still obsessing here.  Spare US !!!! Your about as depressing to read as a bill from a funeral parlor salesman.

Alpha 11 / New Mexico

    Lethe,

  You fail to recognized the obvious !!!  G.M. is a former career Intel Officer of 20 years, and knowingly tried to undermine & interfere with the chain of command structure in a time of war.  Opinions aside, he tried to tell our troops not to trust their superiors in the equipment they were given.  We have a democracy which places those Officers over those men, as he well knows, and in trying to undermine that no matter what the issue, is sedition which is a close cousin to treason.  He gets what he gets; either from authorities overtly, or otherwise as it all unfolds.  I doubt even you in expression of your opinions here would have crossed that line as he did, especially if you were a vet who had served in a war zone.  Don't confuse debating a point to death with real world consequences which must be accounted for; and there will be an accounting I think for all extremists.

How exactly is it treason for a person to warn the troops not to rely on an unreliable detector of deception?

Do you honestly believe that if this web site did not exist then no one on the planet would have access to information on countermeasures?  That's ridiculous.

All George did was point on that the troops should not rely on something that is inaccurate to begin with, and that can also be easily defeated or confounded by anyone with access to either the internet or a public library.

Would it be better for the troops to use the port-a-poly and believe that anyone who passes must be innocent of any terrorist activities?  Is that helping the troops?

wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 5:32am:

T.M.,  Honestly, you are all over this board and your obsession oozes out to where even the occasional reader on this board would assume that it may have in fact been your psychological, rather than your polygraph, which kept you from obtaining your goals.  Plain and Simple, you just may have not measured up above and beyond your polygraph as in what you write is so negative and vile that I wonder how you get through the day.  Maybe your better off as an Amway distributor or something, rather than bringing your crap attitudes into government.  Tone it down, take a Dale Carnegie course, and maybe go out and find a job which can live with YOU !!!  I don't know what that job is, but it's not in an environment where others need to stay positive and focussed like the Feds as an Intelligence type.  What other professions have you considered or applied for ?  Your perpetutation of your claimed victimization is getting thin, as you have NOT moved on and are still obsessing here.  Spare US !!!! Your about as depressing to read as a bill from a funeral parlor salesman. Alpha 11 / New Mexico

It's funny how someone can come on here and trash TM Cullen while not participating in any constrctive way.
Mr. Cullen is passionate about his Polygraph experience as am I and many others. This is about shining a light on an in accurate and un- scientific process that is illegal in for most applications and has somehow survived in fed employment and criminal investigations (though in the later it holds little to no weight) ultimatly labeling people as liers when they may not be.
I don't think this is whinning but a fight that people like us that have been wrongfully labeled need to fight.
We must be on to something because this site is VERY successfull and there are many examiners that make it their business to come here daily to try to shore up thier scam and income from it.
I am sure that Mr. Cullen has moved on profesionally and has a rewarding job in spite of his false positive. I am sure his involvement here is to further education to those that seek the truth in the Polygraph lie.

Not guilty,

Probably just another polygrapher who doesn't like hearing the truth, and, as you said, with nothing constructive to contribute, or anything substantive to respond with.

So he posts a personal attack.  We see this here all the time.

As for moving on.  I am now in the lingerie business.  You now panties, thongs...etc.  It has been very lucrative for me.  Last week alone I pulled down about 2000!

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:19pm:

Not guilty, Probably just another polygrapher who doesn't like hearing the truth, and, as you said, with nothing constructive to contribute, or anything substantive to respond with. So he posts a personal attack.  We see this here all the time. As for moving on.  I am now in the lingerie business.  You now panties, thongs...etc.  It has been very lucrative for me.  Last week alone I pulled down about 2000! TC

Hey TC, Glad to hear it and I will assume you don't need to go on an anti-pantie site to defend your livelyhood LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D