On Saturday, 15 June 2002, I e-mailed the following challenge to American Polygraph Association past president Frank Horvath:

Dear Professor Horvath:

On Friday, 14 June 2002, reporter Joe Bauman of the  Deseret News interviewed you for an article about polygraphy. Bauman's article, which seems to be based soley [sic] on your interview, appears in today's (Saturday, 15 June) issue of the Deseret News under the title, "Polygraph tests not flawless." [Note: the Deseret News is an afternoon paper, and the article actually appeared in the 14 June edition.]

Bauman consfuses irrelevant questions with comparison (or "control") questions. In the second paragraph of his article, Bauman writes:


Quote:

The tests record physiological responses to questions. The queries usually cover both a crime under investigation and matters that are irrelevant or simply technical such as: Is today Friday? Responses to these comparison questions are checked against responses to relevant questions.

You must certainly know the above statement to be false. Irrelevant questions such as, "Is today Friday?" are not comparison questions, responses to which are checked against responses to relevant questions. Irrelevant questions are not scored at all!

Comparison ("control") questions involve an element of trickery on the polygrapher's part. While the polygrapher admonishes the examinee to answer all questions truthfully, he actually wants the subject to experience anxiety-inducing doubt about the truthfulness of his answers to the "control" questions. One commonly used "control" question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher deliberately steers the examinee into a denial by suggesting, for example, that the kind of person who would lie to get out of trouble is the same kind of person who would commit the crime that is under investigation.

It is hard to imagine how Bauman could have reached such an erroneous conclusion about the nature of comparison ("control") questions unless you led him to it. You are a past president of the American Polygraph. Association, whose motto is "Dedicated to Truth." I challenge you demonstrate your dedication to truth by contacting Mr. Bauman and Deseret News associate editor Steve Fidel with a correction. Otherwise, the public might conclude that the misinformation in Bauman's report was the result of deliberate disinformation on your part.

In setting the record straight, the following description of comparison ("control") questions from p. 20 of the Congressional Office of Technology [Assessment]'s 1983 technical memorandum, "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation" may be helpful. (You were a member of OTA's Polygraph Validity Advisory Panel.):


Quote:

The polygraph examiner does not tell the subject that there is a distinction between the two types of questions (control and relevant). Control questions are described as intending to determine if the subject is the "type of person" who would commit a crime such as the one being investigated (136). The examiner stresses that the subject must be able to answer the questions completely with a simple "yes" or "no" answer, that the polygraph will record any confusion, misgivings, or doubts, and that the subject should discuss any troublesome questions with the examiner (20). Thus, the situation is set up such that the subject is persuaded that the examiner wants the truth. In reality, however, the examiner wants the subject to experience considerable doubt about his or her truthfulness or even to be intentionally deceptive. According to Raskin (91), "Control questions are intentionally vague and extremely difficult to answer truthfully with an unqualified 'No'."

You also told Mr. Bauman that critics will say that polygraph testing is 70% accurate. However, polygraph critics are more likely to say that polygraph testing has no scientific basis at all. I refer you, for example, to Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis" and Professor John J. Furedy's article, "The North American Polygraph and Psychophysiology: Disinterested, Uninterested, and Interested Perspectives."

This challenge to you will also be publicly posted to the Polygraph Policy forum of the AntiPolygraph.org message board, where you are invited to publicly respond.

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

cc: Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com>
    Steve Fidel, Associate Editor <steve@desnews.com>

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a second, shall we?  I think most people would venture to say that a regular and vehement critic of the polygraph has probably failed at least one test in his or her life.  People who pass a polygraph test don't openly criticize it.  So Mr Maschke, when did you take your test, and what were your results?  On what issue?  Please be specific.

Liar Liar
8)

Liar_Liar wrote on Jun 16^th, 2002 at 12:30am:

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a second, shall we?  I think most people would venture to say that a regular and vehement critic of the polygraph has probably failed at least one test in his or her life.

What is the point of your assertion?



Quote:

People who pass a polygraph test don't openly criticize it.

W r o n g. I passed mine.


Quote:

So Mr Maschke, when did you take your test, and what were your results?  On what issue?  Please be specific.

I'm sorry, are you inferring that failing a polygraph indicates some sort of character shortcoming?

Dave

You know exactly what I'm saying - let's get some details and allow others to make some reasonable decisions rather than just hear how the poly "doesn't work".  
And since you "passed" your test, what is your criticism? :P

wrote on Jun 16^th, 2002 at 1:29am:

You know exactly what I'm saying - let's get some details and allow others to make some reasonable decisions rather than just hear how the poly "doesn't work".  And since you "passed" your test, what is your criticism?

No, I don't know what you're saying, that's why I asked for clarification as to what you meant. I'm still waiting.

It's a curious thing, really; when we of the anti-polygraph community cite personal anecdotes at the travesties we've experienced in the hands of polygraphers, we're lambasted to 'prove it', to prove our assertions as to what happened-- as if we would make up such horror stories-- for what? Financial gain? Laughable. And yet, here is someone apparently of the propolygraph ilk demanding just such an anecdote.

As to what my criticism is of polygraphy...... I invite you to read a few of my previous posts on the subject.

Liar Liar,

Whether or not the polygraph is a valid test has nothing to do with whether a particular person "passed" it or not.  Mr. Maschke has argued compellingly, persuasively, and substantively that the polygraph does not withstand scientific scrutiny.  Whether he passed or failed twenty polygraph tests is irrelevant.  

If Beech Trees played Russian roulette and survived, would you be asking him why he is critical of that game?

In case you're wondering, I was an FBI agent for 9 years.  I am proud to say that I "failed" a polygraph.  More accurately, the polygraph examiner misinterpreted my physiological reactions as indicating deception when in fact I was being truthful.  By the way, after investigation, I was exonerated.  

Liar-Liar,

First, Have you ever taken a polygraph. I was found "deceptive" on two separate occasions, on two entirely different issues.

You challenge Mr. Maschke on his prowess in polygraph testing. Does it really matter? Mr. Mascke is merely exposing a fraud that has cost many honest, hard working people careers in law enforcement. I am one of those people.

If I had discovered this site and Mr. Williams site before my polygraphs and been educated to the pseudo-science that polygraphy is, I would be having a fine career in LE.

As Beech Trees suggested read the personal statement section. You will find Mr. Mallahs there along with others who have been derailed in their chosen LE professions by polygraphy.

Your opinion is welcomed on this site, but you need to educate yourself to see both sides of the issue

Fred F. ;)

I hate to burst your bubble Liar Liar, but I too passed two polys, I still believe there are many victims of pre-employment poly's who have missed a chance to serve their community as a result of the poly. As a result, the community has missed out on some very good men and women. I would like to see every pro-poly person put their career on the line and agree to take say 15 polys. If you believe in them so much then you would have no problem agreeing to do so. Now I suspect that your answer would be "bring it on" but if you even worried for one second about the outcome of your poly (which I know you would) then you have validated our argument. Any subjective test should make you worry, especially when the stakes are your career. Think about it.

Liar Liar,

Devil's advocate? You? Hardly.

A "devil's advocate" is one who champions the less accepted or approved cause for the sake of argument. But all you've done is to argue ad hominem. The question you put to me is irrelevant to the question raised in this message thread, which is whether a past president of the American Polygraph Association deliberately misled a reporter about the nature of "control" questions.

Nonetheless, I'll be happy to answer your question. As I explained on national television last December (see the message thread Poly Segment on CBS 60 Minutes II, 12/12/01 for a transcript), I failed an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination in 1995. I truthfully answered "No" to each relevant question, but was accused of deception with regard to each of the following:



1. Has anyone directed you to seek employment with the FBI?

2. Other than what you told me, have you ever been in contact with anyone from a non-U.S. Intelligence Service?

3. Have you ever provided classified information to any unauthorized individuals?



1. Have you ever sold any illegal drugs?

2. Have you ever used any illegal drugs?

3. Have you deliberately withheld any important information from your application?

George,

It would appear that the typical modus operandi for the propolygraph community is:

Delay

Deny

Obfuscate

When confronted with direct challenges as to their double-dealing ways, they (among other things) attack the source's character in an attempt to misdirect and obfuscate the truth behind the challenge. Pathetic, really. What utter contempt and loathing I feel for polygraphers and those who would support them.

Liar Liar, just because I passed a polygrah, you think I should support polygraphy or at least not have just cause to criticize this abomination of a pseudo-science? I was never a slave, nor have I owned slaves, but that doesn't mean I accept slavery nor decline to speak out that slavery is a heinous institution.

And, just to get the thread back on track, do you agree or disagree that past APA President Frank Horvath deliberately and with forthought LIED to his journalist interviewer?

Dave

Hey George,

I have it from good sources that you made admissions after failing your FBI polygraph.  Is that true?????? ;D

Polycop

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 4:33pm:

Hey George, I have it from good sources that you made admissions after failing your FBI polygraph.  Is that true?????? ;D Polycop

According to your good sources, what admissions did Mr. Maschke make?

anonymous,

Didn't your mom teach you to never answer a question with a question?

Besides, I believe George can fight his own battles

Polycop

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 4:51pm:

anonymous, Didn't your mom teach you to never answer a question with a question? Besides, I believe George can fight his own battles Polycop

I am quite confident that Mr. Maschke can fight his own battles. However, it is you claim that you have it from good sources that he made admissions after failing his polygraph. If you are not making this up, then you should be able to say specifically what admissions he supposedly made.

Sorry Anonymous,

Not quite yet.  I have to keep my cards close. ;D  I would just like Mr. Maschke to either confirm or deny IN WRITING whether or not he made ANY admissions during ANY polygraph exam he ever took for ANY law enforcement agency....

We know the truth...

Polycop

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 5:18pm:

Sorry Anonymous, I have to keep my cards close. ;D   Polycop

Why? Because you're bluffing? If you know Mr. Maschke to have made admissions, why not lay your cards on the table?

Dear Anonymous,

If George truly never made any admissions, then he should be happy to say so.  I simply would like to see his denial in writing... ;)

Polycop

P.S.  This will be my last post untill we all hear from the "man" himself...

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 5:18pm:

I would just like Mr. Maschke to either confirm or deny IN WRITING whether or not he made ANY admissions during ANY polygraph exam he ever took for ANY law enforcement agency.... We know the truth... Polycop

If you already know the truth, why are you demanding a full accounting as to whether or not George made any damaging admissions? Perhaps it would be best if you, upon whom the burden of evidence concerning your unsubstantiated claims of knowledge rests, tell us what you know publicly. Show us your superb humint and spell out exactly the nature of Mr. Maschke's polygraph interrogation. Otherwise, you are dismissed by me as Yet Another Pro-poly Dillweed who is trying to obfuscate the thread.

Lastly, what possible relevance do your nosey inquiries have to do with the rather obvious fact that past President of the American Polygraph Association FRank Horvath lied to his journalist interviewer?

Dave

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 4:33pm:

Hey George, I have it from good sources that you made admissions after failing your FBI polygraph.  Is that true?????? ;D Polycop

Dear Polycop,

During the "pre-test" phase of my FBI pre-employment polygraph interrogation, I made numerous admissions to "control" questions. I also made an admission to one of the relevant questions: the one about contact with a foreign intelligence service. The question was then rephrased as, "Other than what you told me, have you ever been in contact with anyone from a non-U.S. Intelligence Service?" (My former military duties had entailed such contact.) In addition, I provided my polygrapher with information not asked for in my FBI application form, but which I thought would be important for a background investigator to know. I made no "post-test" admission to any of the relevant questions.

Why do you ask?

Beechtrees,

I said I would not continue this thead until I heard from Maschke himself, but I am so very glad YOU responded.  Because you see, I have been following this web-site for some time and I am concerned about some of your posts...

If I am not mistaken, you claim to have defeated at least two polygraph examinations.  I take that to mean you have taken two exams, that due either to something you did, or for some other reason,  "passed" when you should have "failed."

Now I assume these tests were either criminal issue or screening tests.  Since criminal issue tests are always vitually involving whether or not you committed a certain FELONY crime.  I was just wondering exactly WHICH felony you are so proud of having committed and got away with...

If by chance these exams were screeners, the same question applies.  The relevant questions of screening tests virtually ALWAYS concern whether or not you committed certain FELONIES.  Therefore, I am again asking, WHICH felony you are so proud of having committed and got away with???

Which leads me to the last question, which I really must ask myself...Why am I writing to an admitted felon?  If I wanted to do that, I would write to one of those highly tatoo'd incarcarated women and have a far more entertaining conversation...

Polycop...

P.S.  George, I am still waiting for YOUR written response to my question!

George,

I just got your response.  Thanks.  That confirms some of the back channel info I received...

Polycop...

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 7:29pm:

Beechtrees, I said I would not continue this thead until I heard from Maschke himself, but I am so very glad YOU responded.  Because you see, I have been following this web-site for some time and I am concerned about some of your posts...

Oh my goodness, if you're concerned then I'm very concerned too. Let's see what concerns you, Polycop.


Quote:

(snip Wild Ass Guesses, worthless conjectures, ad hominem attacks, useless drivel)

Polycop, other than your first introductory paragraph, you've got it all wrong. Not just a little wrong, 100% incorrect. If you've been truly following my posts for 'quite some time', how you ever arrived at the above conclusions leads me to believe the future of law enforcement looks dim indeed with you leading the way. Diogenes you ain't.

If you expend as much energy extrapolating conclusions from the charts of your polygraph examinees as you did my previous posts, I truly do pity those folks who sit in your big comfy polygraph chair.

I urge you to take yourself up on your own brilliant epiphany and strike up correspondence with tattoed, incarcerated women. You would probably have much more success wading in that gene pool than you would in the outside world.

If you would care to get your facts straight and then debate me in a civilized manner, feel free to try again.

Lastly, feel free to respond to my previous questions. Or can't you?

Kisses,

Dave

Mr. Beechnut,

Allow me to quote one of your earlier posts to one of my polygraph bretheren:

"...Anger and self-pity? Why would I be angry, or filled with self-pity Mr. PDD? I successfully used physical, psychological, and behavioral countermeasures 'gainst your brethren, sporto.

If anyone should be angry or feeling sorry for themselves, I think it would be the polygrapher whom I so easily and decisively m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-e-d from start to finish, don't you agree? Why, come to think of it, YOU could have been my polygraph interrogator. What delicious irony that would be, eh?"

Sooo, why did you "m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-e" the aforementioned polygrapher?  If you were innocent and just "helping yourself" as you and your cohorts like to encourage, then you can in no way take credit for the NDI result that occurred, no matter what you believe you accomplished.  If you were guilty, then I repeat my earlier question, "what FELONY are you soooo PROUD of hiding???????????????"

Polycop

Polycop,

George has answered your question, though he really had nothing to prove to you.  Are you going to answer his  question?

I also have some questions for you:

1) Why don't you reveal your true name?
2) What repercussions do you fear from standing behind your posts on this site with your true name?

As far as admissions go, under the infinitely flexible definition which polygraphers employ, you have "admitted" to obtaining information concerning an FBI investigation (George Maschke's employment application) without authorization.  You and your back-channel sources, it appears, have violated internal FBI regulations concerning disclosure of information, and probably the Privacy Act as well.  Unless you tell me that information from an applicant's file, unlike other FBI investigations, can be freely disseminated.

By the way, an innocent person who employs countermeasures CAN take some credit for an NDI result, because there is a significant risk of a DI result in the absence of countermeasures.  Or do you not recognize the possibility of a false positive?

Apologies to all for straying off-topic.

wrote on Jun 17^th, 2002 at 10:09pm:

Mr. Beechnut, Allow me to quote one of your earlier posts to one of my polygraph bretheren: "...Anger and self-pity? Why would I be angry, or filled with self-pity Mr. PDD? I successfully used physical, psychological, and behavioral countermeasures 'gainst your brethren, sporto. If anyone should be angry or feeling sorry for themselves, I think it would be the polygrapher whom I so easily and decisively m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-e-d from start to finish, don't you agree? Why, come to think of it, YOU could have been my polygraph interrogator. What delicious irony that would be, eh?" Sooo, why did you "m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-e" the aforementioned polygrapher?  If you were innocent and just "helping yourself" as you and your cohorts like to encourage, then you can in no way take credit for the NDI result that occurred, no matter what you believe you accomplished.

Why is that?


Quote:

If you were guilty, then I repeat my earlier question, "what FELONY are you soooo PROUD of hiding???????????????"

None.

Hey, I get to ask a question back. If someone said that [during the course of a CQT polygraph interrogation] the physiological reaction to the question, "Is today <blank>" is compared to responses to Relevent Questions, would that person be a liar?

Mr. Maschke,

Mr. Mallah is quite correct.  Not only are you the victim of a false positive(s) polygraph result, Polycop has provided information which suggests that you may have been the victim of a falsely alleged polygraph admission(s)/confession(s).  More to Mr. Mallah's point is that FBI administrative rules and perhaps criminal laws may have been violated through this process.  Regardless of whether any involved individuals are still employed by the FBI, I would recommend referring this matter to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Justice Department's Inspector General.  This series of email exchanges should serve as a warning for all others who enter into a polygraph suite as well.

I have just three questions.

a) Why would anyone want to work for the FBI?

b) I presume they use polygraphs to ensure their employees can lie to the approved standard for government employees?

c) Since they evidently don't care that polygraphs are unreliable, I conclude they don't care about anything vaguely related to truth and justice.

George,

Any response, publicly or privately, from retired President Horvath?

On another note, I find it distressing to see 'the other side' stoop to such boorish, unprofessional, crass tactics here on this thread. Libeling both the originator of this thread as well as myself aptly demonstrates the desparation polygraphers feel over the existence of this website and the current message here on this thread-- that one of the most prominent members of the polygraph community abused the trust of a journalist in order to further his own agenda.

And, should anyone be interested, I have never commited a felony, nor did I lie concerning the commission of a felony on my part during any polygraph interrogation.

Dave

wrote on Jun 19^th, 2002 at 6:05pm:

Any response, publicly or privately, from retired President Horvath?

Not a word. However, I did hear from Joe Bauman, who said that if he made a mistake, he would make a correction, and that he was asking Dr. Horvath to "help him sort things out."

As for the boorish tactics of the "other side," it's about what I've come to expect from polygraph "professionals."

The boorish behavior alluded to reflects the environment within the polygraph chamber, certainly in my experience, and from what I read, the experience of others.  There is no appeal to reason; they're just going to pursue their target through ad hominem attack, ridicule, intimidation, vituperation, and other low means.  Any question you ask is going to somehow get turned around against you.  There seems to be an unwritten (maybe written too) credo that you never should answer a question unless the answer serves the goal of undermining the target.

As to Horvath, he has an ethical obligation to correct the record.  Knowing the media, it would not surprise me at all if the reporter just got it wrong, as opposed to Horvath intentionally misleading him.  Regardless, Horvath is ethically bound to rectify it.

I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?  And give us some details about how you were mistreated?  And did you practice countermeasures on your tests as alleged by "poly cop"?   8)

Eastwood wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2002 at 7:25pm:

I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?  And give us some details about how you were mistreated?  And did you practice countermeasures on your tests as alleged by "poly cop"?   8)

I have a question for 'Eestwood'-- if you're so proud of your profession, why not post your true name? And give us some details about how you mislead and lie to your test subjects. And can you detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?

Dave

Quote:

Liar Liar: You know exactly what I'm saying - let's get some details and allow others to make some reasonable decisions rather than just hear how the poly "doesn't work".

175 pages of details are available in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector .


Quote:

Eastwood: I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?

What a joke. You are essentially shouting out the window of a glass house. It’s sort of like how polygraphers feel that is acceptable for them to lie to those being “tested” but that it is not ethical for examinees to use countermeasures to protect themselves against erroneous results.

Can you spell ‘hypocrite’?

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.  They could make a career on your admissions.
:o

Eastwood wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2002 at 9:51pm:

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.  They could make a career on your admissions.

Eastwood,

That's great news! Please pass along the information concerning the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge to those one hundred or so examiners, won't you? Thus far not one polygrapher has been man enough to put his reputation and his credibility on the line-- perhaps you'll have better luck.

Dave

Quote:

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.

I'm sure you do... As “Beech Trees” said, why don’t you let them know about the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge? If you would like us to invite them personally, please forward their mailing addresses to info@antipolygraph.org.


Quote:

They could make a career on your admissions.

Not likely. A 'grapher did everything but try to physically rough me up and he still couldn't make me talk (not that there was anything to admit)--and this was before I had ever researched polygraphy.

As every interrogator knows, one of the cardinal rules of interrogation is not to make an untrue statement of fact to a person being interrogated if there is a chance that the person may realize that you are being deceptive. For example, if a suspect was the getaway car driver in a bank robbery, the last thing a good interrogator wants to do is say to him "we have ten witnesses that saw you in the vault." At this point, the suspect knows that the interviewer actually has very little and is essentially grabbing at straws. Additionally, he knows that trickery is afoot and is very likely to be less than co-operative at this point.

Every polygraph examiner facing someone who has read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is immediately put into this unenviable position as an interviewer. Good luck getting a peep out of those readers with even a modicum of intelligence.

Yesterday, I sent Deseret News correspondent Joe Bauman the following e-mail:


Quote:

Dear Mr. Bauman, Has the Deseret News published a correction? Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org

Today he wrote back:


Quote:

Dear George, I wanted to get back to you with what we decided. I talked over your questions with my editor, Chuck Gates, and also with Prof. Horvath (by e-mail and fax). We have decided that no further action is required. Thanks very much for your contact and for raising some interesting questions. Best wishes, Joe

Can you believe it?!

On Thursday, 27 June, I e-mailed the following question to Joe Bauman:


Quote:

Dear Joe, Thanks for writing back. I'm puzzled by your decision, though. Do you believe that the description of comparison/control questions in your article was true and accurate? What did Dr. Horvath tell you? George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org

I have not yet received any response. It appears that the Deseret News, having been made aware of the error in its reporting, has made a conscious editorial decision not to expose the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing."

If you share my concerns about the Deseret News' journalistic standards, you might also care to send a note of inquiry to reporter Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> and Deseret News editor Chuck Gates <chuck@desnews.com>.

Oh Heavens no!!!.....okay, everybody out there....especially you "newsies"....we are only going to say this once......if you write anything publicly that differs in any fashion with that which the antipolygraph.org family writes, then you will be branded a conspirator with those mean, nasty polygraph folks....and God help you if you refuse to climb on their bandwagon....Hey George, does this mean that Scott Pelley and some of the folks from the national networks/newspapers who refused to get embroiled in your "ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough) arguments and give you a unending soapbox for your pointless arguments have now slipped to the "other side"  ;D

The boys,


Quote:

"ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough)

We use the word because it describes precisely the arguments most often advanced by the polygraphers who post on this site.

Instead of your usual vacuous posts, perhaps a better way to go would be to tell us if you "boys" agree with this quote from the article:

Quote:

The tests record physiological responses to questions. The queries usually cover both a crime under investigation and matters that are irrelevant or simply technical such as: Is today Friday? Responses to these comparison questions are checked against responses to relevant questions.

Are questions like "Is today Friday?" used as comparison questions to check against relevant questions? Or, did the information in the article serve to perpetuate public misperceptions on polygraphy? Was George correct when he pointed out that the article contains an error? Tell the truth now. ;D


Quote:

Hey George, does this mean that Scott Pelley and some of the folks from the national networks/newspapers who refused to get embroiled in your "ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough) arguments and give you a unending soapbox for your pointless arguments have now slipped to the "other side"

If you feel that Scott Pelley's "Final Exam" piece on 60 Minutes came out in support of polygraphy, you are truly delusional.

wrote on Jun 30^th, 2002 at 9:38pm:

Oh Heavens no!!!.....okay, everybody out there....especially you "newsies"....we are only going to say this once......if you write anything publicly that differs in any fashion with that which the antipolygraph.org family writes, then you will be branded a conspirator with those mean, nasty polygraph folks....

Even if that were so (which it certainly is not), such a branding would be infinitely better than having the opposition's posts deleted from the bulletin board, as is the case 100% of the time in a pro-polygraph website.

You were wrong about Dr. Richardson's credentials, you were wrong about his administering polygraph interrogations, and you're wrong now.

Again, quite a curious thing, you referring to yourself in the plural.

Sorry,we missed that thing about "he who refers to himself as royalty". Please explain.

We will make you a deal. Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics? ;)We could be wrong, but it seems to us that Georgie already admited that he placed that moniker on Drew. You have skirted the question long enough. Your readng public wants to know! If we are wrong, then we will graciously admit it, but we are not are we Drew?

And Gino, mia pizano! Don't get so rattled. This is an exchange ideas and comments.  It isn't healthy to lose your temper. We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it! ;D

Quote:

Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics?

Before George and/or Drew states Drew's credentials, which I know qualify him as a polygraph expert (for a sneak preview, he not only graduated from the FBI's polygraph school at the Department of Defense, which polygraphers seem to think qualifies them as experts, the man has a PhD in cardiovascular physiology and completed his doctoral dissertation on a polygraph related topic; I'll let him fill in the details if he so chooses), it is not necessary to have administered any polygraphs to judge whether the polygraph is a valid test or not.  That inquiry is more of a statistical analysis.

For example, an individual can judge the success rate of heart transplants without having performed any heart transplants.  An individual can judge the safety record of, say, American Airlines without being a pilot.  And I might add that polygraphers feel quite free to comment on the validity (or lack thereof) of voice stress analysis without having adminstered a voice stress test themselves.

the boys,


Quote:

Sorry,we missed that thing about "he who refers to himself as royalty". Please explain.

The reference was to your use of the plural to refer to yourself.


Quote:

We will make you a deal. Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics? ;) We could be wrong, but it seems to us that Georgie already admited that he placed that moniker on Drew. You have skirted the question long enough. Your readng public wants to know! If we are wrong, then we will graciously admit it, but we are not are we Drew?

We've discussed Dr. Richardson's credentials at length in the message thread devoted to his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge, which you (and the rest of the polygraph community) evidently lack the self-confidence to accept.


Quote:

And Gino, mia pizano! Don't get so rattled. This is an exchange ideas and comments.  It isn't healthy to lose your temper. We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it!

Nothing in Gino's latest response to you suggests that he is "rattled." But your childish taunts suggest that perhaps you are? Why not respond directly to this relevant question that Gino put to you (and that you so artlessly dodged):

"Are questions like "Is today Friday?" used as comparison questions to check against relevant questions? Or, did the information in the article serve to perpetuate public misperceptions on polygraphy? Was George correct when he pointed out that the article contains an error? Tell the truth now."

the boys,

Your following statement:


Quote:

We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it!

reminds me of something yet another American Polygraph Association past president, Don Weinstein, wrote to me in the message thread, LAPD Dropping Requirement to Pass Polygraph? Mr. Weinstein wrote:


Quote:

You certainly have the right to state your beliefs, and I will defend to the death, your right to state them.

(Could defender-to-the-death-of-the-right-to-free-speech Don Weinstein be masquerading as "the boys?")

In any event, Mr. Weinstein then proceded to accuse me of deliberately misleading people and lying about the LAPD's polygraph policy, adding, "I doubt seriously if you will permit this posting to be shown to your readers." Of course, we don't censor the views posted to the AntiPolygraph.org message board, in contrast to the moderators of the (presently malfunctioning) pro-polygraph PolygraphPlace.co
m message board, who seem not to share Mr. Weinstein's and "the boys'" commitment to free speech.

Interestingly, free speech devotee Don Weinstein chose not to respond when it was pointed out that his accusations against me were without merit. (See Gino Scalabrini's post, A Message to Former APA President Don Weinstein.) Strange behavior for a past president of an organization that purports to be "dedicated to truth."

That tired, wheezy old tactic 'the boys'? (Does he have any idea how foolish he looks attacking Dr. Richardson's credentials?) Apparently not, as he is simply the latest in a long line of 'I don't like his message, so I will attack his credentials' rubes.

Hey Einsteins, Dr. Richardson graduated from your polygraph Mecca. A Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), member of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, a graduate of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's Basic Polygraph Examiner Course, and formerly a practitioner of the CQT in both simulated and field-criminal investigations.

Funny how they never attack Doug Williams' credentials, only his message of useful countermeasures.

Hey Beechtrees,

You said:


wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2002 at 5:31pm:

...Funny how they never attack Doug Williams' credentials, only his message of useful countermeasures.

Please allow me to do so.  Doug's website says:

"Is a veteran of the US Air Force, and was assigned to the White House Communications Agency where he worked in the Situation Room and served as communications advisor to Presidents Johnson and Nixon, (Presidential Service Badge # 1994). http://www.disa.mil/line/whca.html"

Which means exactly WHAT in the field of polygraph?

"Is a graduate of Oklahoma City University with a BS degree in Police Science."

Good for police training, means nothing to the polygraph community execpt maybe as a prerequsite to an accredited polygraph school and to eventual membership in the APA.
 
"Is a graduate of the National Training Center for Lie Detection in New York City."

That is Dick Arthurs' school.  A small private polygraph school that teaches polygraph as little more than an interrogational prop.

"Was the first person licensed by examination under the 1972 Oklahoma Polygraph Licensing Act, and was licensed by the State of Oklahoma from 1972 to 1979."

Probably true, don't really know.

"Administered over 3000 polygraph examinations for many law enforcement agencies including the Secret Service and the FBI."

I love this one.  According to Doug, who spent 6 years as a working examiner.  If he REALLY administered 3000 exams, he would have had to administer OVER 2 exams a day, for every work day, over six years.  That does not include holidays, vacations, sick days, training days, other other duties, (to include his supposed "supervisory duties".  All in all, HIGHLY unlikely.  Add to that his original claim of having conducted over 6000 exams, and well, I just suspect he has been taking a bit of a vacation with the truth...

Oh, and for his having run exams for the FBI and Secret Service?  You might want to know these agencies NEVER use civilian police examiners.  period.  Now Doug may have run an exam or two in cases where his PD had a common investigation with the federal government, but these agencies are highly internalized.  They don't even let other federal agencies run their exams....

"Is a ten year veteran of the Oklahoma City Police Department and held the rank of Detective Sergeant."

And he was sooo incensed at polygraph that he quit a glorious police career to take up the anti-polygraph banner.?  Boy, now THATS dedication.  Next thing you know, he will claim to have slept in his car during his crusade...

"Testified as an expert witness before the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress and was very instrumental in getting the Employee Polygraph Protection Act passed into law."

"Very Instrumental?"  By who's words?  Dougs?

"Was a member of the board of the Office of Technology Assessment, an investigative arm of the US Congress impaneled to study the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector"

Oh, I would LOVE to see the letter that appointed him to the OTA board.

Has been a guest lecturer at a number of colleges and universities.  Has been featured on many national television shows including CBS 60 MINUTES, CBS NIGHTWATCH, NBC NIGHTLY NEWSWITH TOM BROKAW, CNN WORLD NEWS, FOX NETWORK’S EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN, NBC DATELINE, FOX NEWS, CNN NEWS STAND, A DOCUMENTARY FOR THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL, and will soon be featured in a documentary produced by THE LEARNING CHANNEL.
Has been featured in over 150 newspaper and magazine articles, scores of local TV news and talk shows, and over 2,000 radio talk shows."

Although I tend to doubt the numbers here, I do believe he had done all these media things.  Doug LOVES to see himself on TV.  Unfortunately that does NOT make him any kind of an "expert."

Polycop...
   

It's so sad when polygraphers turn on one of their own.....

wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2002 at 7:29pm:

It's so sad when polygraphers turn on one of their own.....

I don't really care about being accused of "turning" on Williams (if that is what you meant).  He is giving bad information to people and making alot of money doing it.  However, I did say something in my last post that I truly regret.  I made a comment about the Arthur School that was based on information I received from others, but did not know for myself.  I made the statement that they teach polygraph as a "prop" for interrogation.  I have since reviewed their curriculum and have discovered that they indeed provide a detailed polygraph training program that explores many areas in the application of polygraph as science and as an investigative tool.  I stand corrected and am sorry for any insult I may have made towards that school or any of its graduates.

Polycop... :-/

I'm curious how Mr. Williams arrived at such a 'bad place' with regard to his opinions and advice on polygraphy if he is a graduate of such a fine school.

And what bad information is he giving?

Well Sir George, it looks as if Mr. Horvath will not be rising to this occassion to correct the record. Obfuscation yet again, this time with a willing 'journalist'.

Dave

Indeed, it appears that Professor Horvath will not be publicly responding to my challenge to him to set the record straight, though I don't know what he may have privately communicated to Mr. Bauman.

As of today, Monday, 8 July, I have still not heard from Mr. Bauman <bau@desnews.com> whether he believes that the description of comparison/control questions in his article was true and accurate, and I somehow expect I won't be receiving a reply.

In addition, I sent the following e-mail to Mr. Bauman's news editor, Chuck Gates <chuck@desnews.com>, on 1 July 2002:


Quote:

Dear Mr. Gates, Some two weeks ago, I pointed out to reporter Ed Bauman a significant factual error in his article, "Polygraph tests not flawless." The error revolves around the nature of comarison (also called "control") questions. (For details, see the AntiPolygraph.org message board post, A Public Challenge to Frank Horvath.) Mr. Bauman wrote back saying that he would look into this, and if there was an error, he'd publish a correction. On Thursday of last week, Mr. Bauman e-mailed me that he and you had agreed that no correction was necessary. I am perplexed over how you could have reached this conclusion. Do you believe that the description of comparison/control questions in Mr. Bauman's article is true and accurate? I'm curious as to what Dr. Horvath might have told you in this regard. In any event, it appears that the Deseret News has made a conscious editorial decision not to expose the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing." I don't see any justification for such a decision, and would be grateful for any clarification you might provide. Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org

I expect that I won't be hearing from Chuck Gates, either...

On the face of things, it appears that Professor Horvath deliberately misled Mr. Bauman regarding the nature of control/comparison questions, and that the Deseret News, having been made aware of the truth of the matter, has made a deliberate editorial decision not to expose "the lie behind the lie detector."