I have been perusing this forum after a horrible polygraph experience. I can relate to most of the posts here. Rather than boring you with my story, I just have a question. I keep seeing people say things like:

"The key to passing is to show stronger reactions to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. The best strategy for accomplishing this result is to covertly augment reactions to the "control" questions."

In theory that makes complete sense. But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

Poly,

Since you are new and fresh , I ask you a question our resident polygrapher has asked.  Why would you come to a site populated by people who have FAILED the polygraph, for advice on the polygraph?

TC

Mr. Cullen

Poly-ana  doesn't qualify under the confines of the question because she has apparently joined the "already failed a polygraph group" due to what she calls a "horrible polygraph experience"

Once again  Please read the question carefully.  

Why should someone who is wants to pass a polygraph examination seek advice on how to pass one, from a group of people who failed?          It's kind of like getting tips on how to pass a field sobriety test from a bunch of convicted drunk drivers.

If it still isn't clear please read the clarification I wrote for Sergeant in response to his non-answer.
It's not a trick question.


btw I see you still think I'm a polygrapher.

Sancho Panza

wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 11:09pm:

In theory that makes complete sense. But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

Techniques for doing this include cognitive activity such as thinking frightening or exiting thoughts, doing mental arithmetic, or biting the side of the tongue. You'll find more on this in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Quote:

Why should someone who is wants to pass a polygraph examination seek advice on how to pass one, from a group of people who failed?

1.  It's not really an "examination", it's an interview/interrogation.   So the terms pass/fail aren't even applicable.  

2.  People have "failed" despite telling the truth.

3.  They, like most of the public, thought all they had to do is tell the truth, and they would, as you would say "pass".

4.  THEREFORE, there is a lot a person about to take thid so-called "examination" could learn from those people (i.e. those who "failed" despite telling the truth).

You present the question in terms of passing or failing a test.

NG1's analogy of "falling for", or "NOT falling for" a scam is more accurate.

So, what is the point in answering your question, when your question is misleading?

TC

P.S.  A person also wanting to invent the light bulb walked up to Tom Edison one day asking for advice.  At that point, Edison had failed miserably at the task.  Sancho's GGF, a well know alchemist, walked up to this man and said:  "HAH!  Why would you ask advice from a person who has failed so many times to accomplish what you are trying to do?!  Why don't you come to work for me.  I'm attempting to convert pigeon droppings into lemon drops!"

Mr. Cullen, Once again you try to change the question so you can construct a convenient answer. But your answer doesn't address the question.

I think that it's time that you face the fact that your view of polygraph is based only on your limited experience and that in order to discuss the topic you have to manipulate the discussion to fit your circumstance. Because your knowledge and experience is so limited it prevents you from discussing the related issues that a more investigatory approach to the subject would allow. Notguilty1 and Sergeant have similar issues in this regard.

You have shown that you absolutely cannot answer this simple straightforward question because it doesn't fit your experience or allow you to speak about failure in your personal context. Instead you spout the same old "bullet points" even though they aren't responsive. You seem to want to make people believe they are relevant to this question and they aren't.

Yet, even though you lack the apparent ability to conceptualize the question from its existing point of view , instead of realizing that the question may be outside your ability to answer, you find yourself unable avoid offering SOME kind of response. You just can't seem to resist an opportunity to spout the same old stuff, and in doing so try to inhibit someone who might have a fresh point of view from answering the question.

The quote I use sometimes "Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a small part of the sky" really points at those who try to define a subject based on a severly limited point of view.

You, Notguilty1, Sergeant, and Dr.Maschke have taken polygraphs and failed them. Dr. Maschke has researched possible countermeasures and collected stories that seem to support his point of view even though some require a little twisting to fit.

I on the other hand have taken polygraphs, I have observed polygraphs including people who passed, people who failed and confessed and people who failed and didn't confess. I have seen people who failed and didn't confess later convicted of the crime they were tested on. In addition I have read and researched quite a bit of the existing literature, but I didn't limit myself to excerpts from the NAS study, I even read Dr. Maschke's and Doug Williams books to make sure I looked at BOTH sides of the issue.

Whether we agree or disagree, I submit that my point of view is a bit broader than your own.  

Sancho Panza

PS  The most obvious difference between Dr. Maschke and Doug Williams is that I would describe one as a mis-guided but sincere crusader and the other as an unscrupulous profiteer.

SP

And then there are those people who have no option or severely limited options and so they have to dwell at the bottom of the well,
not being permitted a broader view.

I see polytek has returned barking one-liners from under the porch.  

Have you ever in your entire life, (not just on here) contributed anything substantive to a discussion?


Sancho Panza

Excuse me  I should have said anything more substantive than the directions you gave to "Wanda Loo aka jojo22" on how to find their tongue.  That advice gave us all a very clear picture of where your coming from and what you are tryng to accomplish.

I would not be the least suprised to find that you write grafitti on the wall of your bathroom at home.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 26^th, 2008 at 4:00am:

Mr. Cullen Poly-ana  doesn't qualify under the confines of the question because she has apparently joined the "already failed a polygraph group" due to what she calls a "horrible polygraph experience" Once again  Please read the question carefully.   Why should someone who is wants to pass a polygraph examination seek advice on how to pass one, from a group of people who failed?          It's kind of like getting tips on how to pass a field sobriety test from a bunch of convicted drunk drivers. If it still isn't clear please read the clarification I wrote for Sergeant in response to his non-answer. It's not a trick question. btw I see you still think I'm a polygrapher. Sancho Panza

OK Sancho I will play your game since the shell game has been exposed.
A person that was trying to pass a Polygraph would seek advice from a bunch of people that have failed because since, many have at least heard of the invalidity of the "test" would want to know what others have experienced in this regard. And if in fact telling the truth would not assure a pass ( which it doesn't).

There are enough people who have failed despite telling the truth that we do have advice to give, if nothing more than tell them what happens during the test in all it's glory. Even tough you don't see it that way.
Your example of people seeking to pass a field sobriety test getting advice from convicted drunk drivers has absolutely no validity here since, breathalyzer evidence alone has, and does convict drunk drivers in ALL 50 states daily, polygraphs ........ NOT

So, Sancho, if your going to make comparisons lets's compare apples to apples not apples to crystal balls!
There now, your question has been answered but I am sure not to your satisfaction.

Quote:

Your example of people seeking to pass a field sobriety test getting advice from convicted drunk drivers has absolutely no validity here since, breathalyzer evidence alone has, and does convict drunk drivers in ALL 50 states daily, polygraphs ........ NOT

The key words are "direct" and "unequivocal".

Breathalyzer's directly measure a person's level of inebriation.  Polygraphs directly measures a person's F3 (fight, flight, freeze) response to a question, not truthfulness.

And the results from a breathanlyzer, therefore are unequivocal.  You are X% drunk.  Polygraph results are not unequivocal.  F3 responses are not unique to deception.  An F3 reaction, could be explained by other reasons.  If one is told they are having trouble with a given question (biased against that question), each time that question is asked they might well react to it.  Then again, never forget the polygraph is not really a test, as the ultimate goal is not to measure truthfulness, but to elicit information.  

TC

P.S.  If you disagree with me, then you are a complete idiot, and probably work for the Iranians!

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 26^th, 2008 at 4:00am:

Why should someone who is wants to pass a polygraph examination seek advice on how to pass one, from a group of people who failed?

To learn from other's "mistakes"? Is it really that difficult to understand?

We could argue the error rate of breath analysis using a breathalyzer or I could point out that failing a breathalyzer is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict someone of drunk driving,  but it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked.

Again you are trying to change the question and the comparison to suit yourself so you can provide the answer you want. Just admit you can't think of why someone would consult failures for tips on passing.

BTW a breathalyzer doesn't  directly measure a person's level of inebriation.It does not provide a reading of "You are X% drunk" It provides a statistical inference correlating the amount of alcohol in a sibject's bloodstream based on an analysis of alcohol in a breath sample. That really has little to do with how "Drunk" someone is which is a subjective statement concerning the appearance of the level of impairment or the observable behaviors of someone who has been drinking.  A BAC of 0.10% may make a 98 pound coed so drunk she can't walk while the same BAC in a 300 pound linebacker might be undetectable depending on drinking history, metabolism, tolerance for alcohol, or percentage of body fat absent a chemical test.

Arguably if you could practice the Standardized Filed Sobriety Test to the point of perfection even while your BAC was above the legal limit, you would have developed a countermeasure that would effectively keep you from being arrested for DUI or submitting to a breathalyzer or intoxilyzer.  If this is what you were trying to do, why would you consult convicted drunk drivers since in all probability they lack the skills necessary to pass a field sobriety test or they wouldn't have been convicted in the first place.

That is why consulting people who failed polygraph test for tips on how to pass seems like a fooloish endeavor.

Sancho Panza

Cullen  If your PS is intended as a tongue in cheek attampt at humor, my response is very funny hahaha.     If it was meant as an ad hominum attack, my response to you is Let's play horsey, I'll be the "head end" and you can just be yourself.

SP

Wow, I just came here for a little advice and it seems a pissing contest has broken out. For everyone's information.... yes, I have failled the polygraph... twice. So that gives me every right to be here seeking advice and learn from other people's mistakes.

I can't help but wonder why Pancho is here other than to chastise people? I may not have broad experience in the field, but I know that I have told the absolute truth and still failed two times. I don't need any more data than that to know that the polygraph is complete rubish!

Correction to the above post:

I don't why Sancho is here.

wrote on Sep 26^th, 2008 at 8:44pm:

Correction to the above post: I don't why Sancho is here.

Poly, Sancho is here to make readers believe that, we all have no idea what we are talking about and that we must all be liars.
That we have zero right to malign his "test" since we cannot be telling the truth ( if we were the machine would say so)

He does this in a futile attempt to keep the scam of Polygraph going.
He needs to do this to further his cause and income.
Unfortunately, he is all alone here and often makes an ass of himself. By continually moving the focus off the validity of his machine and onto ANYTHING else. Now he's on a kick of answering his question, which has been answered time and time again.
Please know that your not alone in your experience and a machine cannot label you a liar .... unless you let it.

Notguilty1, You are wrong about polygraph being a scam and as  to your claim that any attempt to keep polygraph going is futile, well you are wrong about that as well.

The combined efforts of you Dr. Maschke and all the rest haven't been able to change ANYTHING about polygraph in the last 8 years.  The petition that boasts 1333 signatures to "end polygraph screening" has less than 1200 signatures if you don't count voided lines, joke names, first name only and duplicates. The petition started in 2002 and has averaged less than 200 signatures a year.  All of your complaints have not caused a single agency that was using polygraph to stop and you can't really say that you have prevented anyone from implementing its use either.  Recent research indicates that honest people who try to use Dr. Maschke's techniques to help themselves pass are actually more likely to fail. If they are caught attempting countermeasures on a pre-employment test, their credibility is destroyed. You are probably doing more harm than good to otherwise truthful examinees.

Every year that antipolygraph.org has existed the number of courts admitting polygraph results has still increased. Every year the number of states using it to monitor convicts on parole has still increased. All the while polygraph research marches on. Ignoring the research that has occurred since the NAS report won't make it go away and you should realize that your chance of abolishing the use of polygraph in your lifetime is somewhere south of a snowball in Hades.

As to me being alone here, If I needed any help to deal with your severe lack of knowledge and  near total absence of anything remotely resembling intelligence I would hire a jackass and teach him how to type. You are living proof that it can be done, and I'm willing to bet that the one I train will have fewer typing errors.

Sancho Panza

Quote:

Again you are trying to change the question and the comparison to suit yourself so you can provide the answer you want. Just admit you can't think of why someone would consult failures for tips on passing.

Read disappointed's answer to your question.  "To learn from people's mistakes and experiences".  Couldn't have said it any better.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Actually, I think you DO understand.

Does the polygraph machine directly detect deception?

TC

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 27^th, 2008 at 3:03am:

Notguilty1, You are wrong about polygraph being a scam and as  to your claim that any attempt to keep polygraph going is futile, well you are wrong about that as well. The combined efforts of you Dr. Maschke and all the rest haven't been able to change ANYTHING about polygraph in the last 8 years.  The petition that boasts 1333 signatures to "end polygraph screening" has less than 1200 signatures if you don't count voided lines, joke names, first name only and duplicates. The petition started in 2002 and has averaged less than 200 signatures a year.  All of your complaints have not caused a single agency that was using polygraph to stop and you can't really say that you have prevented anyone from implementing its use either.  Recent research indicates that honest people who try to use Dr. Maschke's techniques to help themselves pass are actually more likely to fail. If they are caught attempting countermeasures on a pre-employment test, their credibility is destroyed. You are probably doing more harm than good to otherwise truthful examinees. Every year that antipolygraph.org has existed the number of courts admitting polygraph results has still increased. Every year the number of states using it to monitor convicts on parole has still increased. All the while polygraph research marches on. Ignoring the research that has occurred since the NAS report won't make it go away and you should realize that your chance of abolishing the use of polygraph in your lifetime is somewhere south of a snowball in Hades. As to me being alone here, If I needed any help to deal with your severe lack of knowledge and  near total absence of anything remotely resembling intelligence I would hire a jackass and teach him how to type. You are living proof that it can be done, and I'm willing to bet that the one I train will have fewer typing errors. Sancho Panza

Sancho,
Again I need to educate you about if nothing else, my views.
Fact is that Polygraph IS nothing more than a interrogation tool. That the "test" relies on the examines belief that is can actually detect deception.

There have been many personal experiences posted here of people who in fact have failed the test and been truthful. I am as you know one of them.

I have no interest in counter measures and did not attempt any during my polygraph. I was amongst those you rely on that believed I had nothing to worry about since I had nothing to lie about.
I do not know if they work and have never advised anyone to try.
As a matter of fact, I have discouraged posters here that intended on lying to even take the polygraph and job, regardless of polygraphs ability to detect the lies.

I do know however that since the machine does not detect lies I can see how some may be encouraged to help their chances better than a  coin toss.
I Can't say if I would or wouldn't attempt it.
Again, my message here is not to promote counter measures but to deter the use of polygraph as a lie detector which it is not. And to show the lie that is polygraph.

Your insistence that our attempts to eliminate polygraphs are futile means nothing since if enough people get informed ( a concept that petrifies you I'm sure) the polygraph will not work as currently used
" an interrogation tool dependent on the ignorance of the examinee to be effective at obtaining a confession" all others who refuse to confess are just rejected regardless of their truthfulness.


Lastly Sancho, you personal attacks on me just go to show your fear of what I have to say. You have tried to glorify yourself through many avenues that have nothing to do with polygraph and if your knowledge in those fields rival your stand on polygraph I shutter to think what you actually know.
I will not participate in a personal attack volley with you since my message is not aimed at you but to inform and possibly educate those like me that have suffered in some way at the hands of people like you.
If your assessment of me was in fact correct, " having a severe lack of intelligence" and akin to less than a jackass then what pray-tell does that say about your continued responses to my posts Hmmmm?

You should really compose yourself if you're to be taken with any kind of seriousness here. ;D

Quote:

You should really compose yourself if you're to be taken with any kind of seriousness here. Grin

And he should stop making references to bestiality with horses, mules, donkeys or any other poor animal!   I find it totally inappropriate.

TC

Notguilty1. First let me say  that any comparison that I made between you and a typing jackass was purely intentional and a response Dr. Maschke's refusal to take you to task for your repeated personal attacks on me. I informed him days ago of your repeated name calling and he failed to respond. If he had enforced his own so called "Rules" a response would have been unnecessary. It appears as though over time he is consistently more vigilant enforcing rules against those who disagree with him than he is with anyone who agrees with him. You complaining about a personal attack after the things you have written about me here is laughable and probably symptomatic of your constant portrayal of yourself as a victim. All that being said, if an apology is owed here, it would only be to the jackass who might actually have a cause of action against me for defamation of its character.

All this site really provides is 2 things #1 a pity party for complainers like you and bad information from a book that tries to justify lying, encourage lying, and even offering suggestions on how to lie. Those people who are confused about what they should do may be worth saving before they take the bad advice offered here and destroy their chance at a career. Taking the advice offered in Dr. Maschke's book can only lead them back here to join the pity party. The time I spend here is worth it if it prevents even one person from ruining his life by taking Dr. Maschke's advice. Recent research indicates that an honest person who attempts Dr. Maschke's techniques significantly reduces their chance of passing a polygraph test.

If you want to have any chance of changing polygraph law, you're going to need 12,000 signatures not 1200 and at the present rate of signers trickling into this board that may occur in about 60 years. That is if the board is still here in 60 years. Believe me I am pretty unconcerned that this site will have any long term effect on polygraph. My concern is the negative effect that it may have on individuals who come here and take the bad advice offered in the book.

Let us assume, without concession that the techniques taught in Dr. Maschke's allowed one child molester to fool one naive examiner who was unfamiliar with techniques on disclosing counter measures.
Would you concede that this site has done society a disservice? or Would you count this hypothetical child molester’s subsequent victims as acceptable casualties in this crusade against polygraph?  A crusade you joined simply because you were personally embarrassed by failing a polygraph yourself. Exactly how many raped and murdered children would it take to salve your hurt feelings? I'm betting you'll try to change the subject here rather than respond contextually.

Don’t worry about my composure, you couldn’t tilt me with a D-5 CAT

Sancho Panza

PS


Quote:

And he should stop making references to bestiality with horses, mules, donkeys or any other poor animal!   I find it totally inappropriate. TC

TC I have carefully refrained from commenting on any specific relationship that might exist between you and Notguilty1.  What exactly are you talking about?

sp

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 27^th, 2008 at 1:54pm:

Notguilty1. First let me say  that any comparison that I made between you and a typing jackass was purely intentional and a response Dr. Maschke's refusal to take you to task for your repeated personal attacks on me. I informed him days ago of your repeated name calling and he failed to respond. If he had enforced his own so called "Rules" a response would have been unnecessary. It appears as though over time he is consistently more vigilant enforcing rules against those who disagree with him than he is with anyone who agrees with him. You complaining about a personal attack after the things you have written about me here is laughable and probably symptomatic of your constant portrayal of yourself as a victim. All that being said, if an apology is owed here, it would only be to the jackass who might actually have a cause of action against me for defamation of its character. All this site really provides is 2 things #1 a pity party for complainers like you and bad information from a book that tries to justify lying, encourage lying, and even offering suggestions on how to lie. Those people who are confused about what they should do may be worth saving before they take the bad advice offered here and destroy their chance at a career. Taking the advice offered in Dr. Maschke's book can only lead them back here to join the pity party. The time I spend here is worth it if it prevents even one person from ruining his life by taking Dr. Maschke's advice. Recent research indicates that an honest person who attempts Dr. Maschke's techniques significantly reduces their chance of passing a polygraph test. If you want to have any chance of changing polygraph law, you're going to need 12,000 signatures not 1200 and at the present rate of signers trickling into this board that may occur in about 60 years. That is if the board is still here in 60 years. Believe me I am pretty unconcerned that this site will have any long term effect on polygraph. My concern is the negative effect that it may have on individuals who come here and take the bad advice offered in the book. Let us assume, without concession that the techniques taught in Dr. Maschke's allowed one child molester to fool one naive examiner who was unfamiliar with techniques on disclosing counter measures. Would you concede that this site has done society a disservice? or Would you count this hypothetical child molester’s subsequent victims as acceptable casualties in this crusade against polygraph?  A crusade you joined simply because you were personally embarrassed by failing a polygraph yourself. Exactly how many raped and murdered children would it take to salve your hurt feelings? I'm betting you'll try to change the subject here rather than respond contextually. Don’t worry about my composure, you couldn’t tilt me with a D-5 CAT Sancho Panza PS Quote: And he should stop making references to bestiality with horses, mules, donkeys or any other poor animal!   I find it totally inappropriate. TC TC I have carefully refrained from commenting on any specific relationship that might exist between you and Notguilty1.  What exactly are you talking about? sp

Again sancho I will refrain from tossing a disrespectful shot back at you even though you continue to portray me as a "jackass". I do however understand your need to avoid the real topic and put emphasis on your "assumed" understanding of me, my guilt or my very humanity. I hoped that you may no longer see the need for " he hit me first so he's a donkey". Looks like that won't be the case so again I am speaking to the people that are here for direct experience information. Yes, Sancho that comes from people like me.
You ask me if I consider one pedophile beating the test and his future victims "acceptable casualties" the answer is no I don't. However, since your scenario proves my contention. 1) Polygraph does not detect lies 2) The examiner has so much influence on the outcome.

Now a question for you I will use but one example as you did understanding that it is not limited to one.
Gary Ridgeway PASSED a Polygraph and DID go on to murder again and again, how ? He lied!
Would you say that those victims are "acceptable casualties"  in the survival of this unreliable and inaccurate "test"? And, please do remember that there have and will be many more that WILL fall victim to this test's invalidity.

If polygraph was in fact accurate it would be great and widely used.
Imagine a world where no one could lie. Doctors, Lawyers, POLITICIANS, teachers, contractors, care givers. How great would that be? Instead polygraph is at best relinquished to a interrogation tool that relies on the examinees nativity and the examiners opinion.
I cannot believe that any intelligent person could not see that.


Sancho, continue to insult and take cheap shot at me if you must. But, the truth will be told and, perhaps slowly the scam will be unveiled. For many it already has.


:) :) :) :)

How could there be "personal" attacks?  You guys are using anonymous names.

As for George, he has admonished me a number of times when I got out of line.

How serious do you think GM is going to be with someone, who has accused him of working for the Iranians and promoting child molestation, when they go crying to him about personal attacks being made against them?

Stop whining!  If you can't take the truth, go back to your polygraphs!  There's a little irony for you!

TC

P.S.  Are you Sackett?

Sancho Panza

A couple of questions for you.

1. Do you not consider yourself and other polygraphers, posting vile    
   stuff about George on this website, complainers?

2. Do you really expect those who polygraphers have failed, while
   knowing they have been totally truthful, to just take your decision
   and go on down the road and not fight the best way they know how
   for their integrity?

3. Actually 3. Would you fight for your integrity if you felt wronged by
   a person?

All of you have constantly accused George of suppling the enemy with countermeasures. Well hell, if they don't work, why the accusations and bitching about it here. My take is that you do it because of his opposition which has had some success. You people appear to believe you should be above opposition.
   

Twoblock,

While I vehemently disagree with Dr. Maschke's postition on polygraph and have been severely critical of his book and the things he is trying to teach, I have never accused him of working for the Iranians nor have I ever accused him of promoting child molestation. I have commented that the information he provides is done without restriction and is available to both terrorists and child molestors. Two groups that would have significantly more at stake in failing a polygraph than a job applicant. I believe that Dr. Maschke is aware that the parts of his book dealing with attempted countermeasures has been translated into Farsi and Eastern Persian. I have no reason at all to believe that he is the translator allthough considering his docorate in near eastern languages he might be well capable. I believe he knows that his book is in use by the enemies of the United States and if you leave the matches laying in the floor you have to share a bit of the responsibilty with the kid who starts the fire. There is a difference between attacking his ideas and attacking him personally whether you can see it or not.  I'm sure Dr. Maschke can tell the difference.

When I accuse him of promoting and endorsing lying, I am referring to his book and his statements. Just today he encouraged someone to lie by writing;

Quote:

The person who has decided to employ countermeasures should obviously answer "No" if asked "Did you use countermeasures on this test?"

I find it mystifying why anyone would choose to believe someone who maintains that lying is an acceptable way to deal with a prospective employer especially when applying for a position of public trust.

Without getting into your pointless back and forth about whether or not you consider polygraph to be scientific you have to realize that error rate is an unavoidable fact. Error rates are made up of false positives and false negatives and I don't think polygraphers like them any more than the people who post on this board. It is impossible to eliminate error in any scientific test procedure. Research is ongoing to reduce error rate and identify factors that contribute to errors, but it never will be eliminated completely in polygraph or any other procedure you might think of, despite of someones view that somehow there exists some type of infallible scientific test out there somewhere. Polygraph research sometimes doesn't always produce identical accuracy and validity measurements because the focus of the research may concern a specific testing procedure in one study and a different procedure in another study or it may be a field study versus a laboratory study. (DNA Lab Studies always turn out different than DNA Field studies for example. Another complication is that you are dealing with people rather than test tubes. To say that polygraphers can't even agree on polygraph accuracy because the studies don't have idetical results is an irresponsible exaggeration. I'm betting that you will be unable to find an expert in any field you can name to state that his tests don't have errors. Polygraph may not be infallible, but it is getting better, but its detractors want to stop it without giving it an opportunity to reach it's potential.

You seem to ignore that most of the scientific principles that support and explain powered human flight came after a couple of intelligent high school dropouts with no scientific credentials put the first real airplane into the sky at kittyhawk. Using some of the same arguments that are used here against polygraph, flight research would have been halted because they just built an airplane instead of a Space Shuttle.

Every time you try to focus only on polygraph errors you ignore the astronomically greater number of its successes. For every Gary Ridgeway that you can produce that apparently did not show deception on his exam, Polygraph could provide hundreds if not thousands of murderers brought to justice with the participation of polygraph. I am aware of several cases, later confirmed by confession and physical evidence where a person who was not even considered to be a prime suspect was given a polygraph which indicated deception and once the investigation was focused in their direction evidence was discovered which established their culpability. If not for Polygraph the evidence might never have been looked for or only stumbled upon by sheer luck or accident.   It is simply not fair or responsible to ignore the successes based on the errors.

Sancho Panza

PS     Notguilty1 wrote
Quote:

tool that relies on the examinees nativity and the examiners opinion

what does where someone is born have to do with anything?

PSS   Mr. Cullen  No I am not Sackett.  Are you Twoblock?

SP

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 27^th, 2008 at 9:36pm:

Twoblock, While I vehemently disagree with Dr. Maschke's postition on polygraph and have been severely critical of his book and the things he is trying to teach, I have never accused him of working for the Iranians nor have I ever accused him of promoting child molestation. I have commented that the information he provides is done without restriction and is available to both terrorists and child molestors. Two groups that would have significantly more at stake in failing a polygraph than a job applicant. I believe that Dr. Maschke is aware that the parts of his book dealing with attempted countermeasures has been translated into Farsi and Eastern Persian. I have no reason at all to believe that he is the translator allthough considering his docorate in near eastern languages he might be well capable. I believe he knows that his book is in use by the enemies of the United States and if you leave the matches laying in the floor you have to share a bit of the responsibilty with the kid who starts the fire. There is a difference between attacking his ideas and attacking him personally whether you can see it or not.  I'm sure Dr. Maschke can tell the difference. When I accuse him of promoting and endorsing lying, I am referring to his book and his statements. Just today he encouraged someone to lie by writing; Quote: The person who has decided to employ countermeasures should obviously answer "No" if asked "Did you use countermeasures on this test?" I find it mystifying why anyone would choose to believe someone who maintains that lying is an acceptable way to deal with a prospective employer especially when applying for a position of public trust. Without getting into your pointless back and forth about whether or not you consider polygraph to be scientific you have to realize that error rate is an unavoidable fact. Error rates are made up of false positives and false negatives and I don't think polygraphers like them any more than the people who post on this board. It is impossible to eliminate error in any scientific test procedure. Research is ongoing to reduce error rate and identify factors that contribute to errors, but it never will be eliminated completely in polygraph or any other procedure you might think of, despite of someones view that somehow there exists some type of infallible scientific test out there somewhere. Polygraph research sometimes doesn't always produce identical accuracy and validity measurements because the focus of the research may concern a specific testing procedure in one study and a different procedure in another study or it may be a field study versus a laboratory study. (DNA Lab Studies always turn out different than DNA Field studies for example. Another complication is that you are dealing with people rather than test tubes. To say that polygraphers can't even agree on polygraph accuracy because the studies don't have idetical results is an irresponsible exaggeration. I'm betting that you will be unable to find an expert in any field you can name to state that his tests don't have errors. Polygraph may not be infallible, but it is getting better, but its detractors want to stop it without giving it an opportunity to reach it's potential. You seem to ignore that most of the scientific principles that support and explain powered human flight came after a couple of intelligent high school dropouts with no scientific credentials put the first real airplane into the sky at kittyhawk. Using some of the same arguments that are used here against polygraph, flight research would have been halted because they just built an airplane instead of a Space Shuttle. Every time you try to focus only on polygraph errors you ignore the astronomically greater number of its successes. For every Gary Ridgeway that you can produce that apparently did not show deception on his exam, Polygraph could provide hundreds if not thousands of murderers brought to justice with the participation of polygraph. I am aware of several cases, later confirmed by confession and physical evidence where a person who was not even considered to be a prime suspect was given a polygraph which indicated deception and once the investigation was focused in their direction evidence was discovered which established their culpability. If not for Polygraph the evidence might never have been looked for or only stumbled upon by sheer luck or accident.   It is simply not fair or responsible to ignore the successes based on the errors. Sancho Panza PS     Notguilty1 wrote [quote]  tool that relies on the examinees nativity and the examiners opinion

what does where someone is born have to do with anything?

PSS   Mr. Cullen  No I am not Sackett.  Are you Twoblock?

SP[/quote]

The fact that Ridgeway "apparently" did not show deception on his polygraph IS proof that polygraphs DO NOT detect lies!
And Ridgeway is NOT the only one !!!


Sancho, if someone was in fact given a poly in connection with a crime than they are considered a suspect or at least a person of interest in the case.

It amazes me that some one who is such an expert in so many fields including barn animals and earth movers cannot grasp these obvious facts!!   ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

2. Do you really expect those who polygraphers have failed, while   knowing they have been totally truthful, to just take your decision   and go on down the road and not fight the best way they know how   for their integrity? 3. Actually 3. Would you fight for your integrity if you felt wronged by   a person?

I guess my response to these two questions would be that they aren't really fighting for their integrity by complaining about polygraph results. Integrity is a quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity. If this truly exists in a person it cannot be affected by someone elses opinion or perceptions. Conversely,false integrity AKA the appearance or claim of integrity is of great concern to those who lack the real thing. Those who have the real thing don't have to worry about it.

A false positive on a polygraph examination shouldn't compromise ones integrity in the slightest.
Lying on a polygraph test or attempting countermeasures either damages it severely,or it was never there in the first place.

I assure you I will never have to fight anyone for my integrity because I own it and while I could possibly ( but extremely unlikely ) give it away, NOONE can take it.  In short the only person I would ever have to fight for my integrity is me.

Once again if someone fails a polygraph test and they were telling the truth their integrity remains intact, and can't be taken away.  However if they failed the test because they lied and then proclaim they told the truth, integrity is something they lacked to begin with and it STILL cannot be taken away.

Sancho Panza

Notguilty1  I can certainly see why you didn't want to call attention to the sentence between the two you chose to highlight.

Now go see if you can find someone to explain to you what the phrase "not even considered to be a prime suspect" means.

Sancho Panza

Dear SanchoPanza,

If someone is truthful and they are a false positive, you state their integrity is intact.  The person's integrity is not intact when the accuser is a sworn law enforcement officier of the United States.  The FBI uses Special Agents, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as examiners.  They are given the benefit and weight of such color of law in their duties.  Their judgement is given the benefit of a doubt against all who apply in a closed door room with no recording devices.  If such recording devices are used, the applicant does not have access to any data resulting from such recording devices.

For all effective purposes, an accusation or inference by the FBI that a person is "not within acceptable parameters" without admission or substantiated back ground investigation is "black-balling" to the applicant's career in the Federal and State law enforcement community.

There is no background check if the examiner or agency thinks that the applicant does not meet their standards.  There is no verification that the accused "deception" ever occurred.  The only place it occurred for sure is in the examiner's mind.

This site is not filled with a bunch of whiners and losers.  Many people are trying to figure out how the system could go so wrong. They are searching for answers to make sense of a process that has failed them.

Integrity is an abstract.  To those fire fighters, law enforcement, and military persons, integrity is something that cannot be bought or sold.  When the United States Government takes that feeling of integrity away with the polygraph process, it is a feeling of violation which does not easily go away.

Regards.

sancho panza

A good debator, in his rebuttle, will first answer the questions then give the reason (as best he can) to his answers.

Maybe I can answer them.

1. No you don't. All of you are in denial. Certainly you are
   complainers, whiners and have a pity party of your own going.
   else you wouldn't be here.

2. Yes you do. Because you feel that your singular power should face
   no opposition.

3. I am betting you would. If you wouldn't you are balless.

You consistently use rhetorical analogies, like the airplane boys, the medical profession, Eli Whitney's cotten gin, Don Quixote's probing of windmills, etc., etc. (A little humor here). Very little, if any, is analogous to the polygraph - to which you will probably say "you don't know enough about the polygraph to make such a statement - to which I would have to say "I have some knowledge of the polygraph (self gained through research) albeit not as much as in partical acceleration.

If you would do some research, you might just find that Al Qaeda had countermeasure information before this website was on line. Also, Doug Williams had a book out long before this website went up. Is it possible they could have gotten it there? Didn't the Russians have countermeasures before Williams?

Again I ask. If y'all are so damn confident in your ability to detect countermeasures, why are you here constantly railing against them? If we can keep one applicant from falling into a false positive, our effort is worth it.

The damage I see that this site is doing is it has put a burr on your saddles, giving you the red ass, and it's causing more and more guessing accusations of CMs to which polygraphers have the unqualified power to make stick.

Read George's lips again. He has always stated tell the truth on the relevants and use CMs on expected lie controls. Why do you expect lies on the controls? To try to determine the truthfulness of the relevants. So if George advises to do what you expect why do you rail against him.

This is my rebuttle.

Fair Chance, You are confusing reputation for integrity. Reputation is who people think you are. Integrity is who you really are. Integrity is not an abstract, either you have it or you don't. You can give it away, You can throw it away, you might even be talked out of it,  but no one can take it away from you unless you are prepared to turn it loose.

You can live with a bad reputation, but if you try to live without integrity it will rot you from the inside. If you compromise your integrity to obtain what you want then your success will bring you no satisfaction because while you may learn to live with the lies you have told others, you will never reconcile the lies you try to tell yourself. This will prevent you from regaining your integrity.

asancho panza

I see your post and others was done before I got mine in.

Twoblock wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 1:56am:

If you would do some research, you might just find that Al Qaeda had countermeasure information before this website was on line. Also, Doug Williams had a book out long before this website went up. Is it possible they could have gotten it there? Didn't the Russians have countermeasures before Williams?

If you would do some research, you might just find that  George Maschke wrote in a thread he named "Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector"


Quote:

Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector Jan 9th, 2006, 2:46pm    Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Apparently Dr. Mashcke knows where they got their information even if you don't. From his full post one might reasonably conclude he was proud of the fact

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 27^th, 2008 at 9:36pm:

..I believe that Dr. Maschke is aware that the parts of his book dealing with attempted countermeasures has been translated into Farsi and Eastern Persian....

That's the first I've heard of it. Who told you this?

Naughty Sancho fibbing again.

Sancho, do you falsely accuse people of child molestation too?

Karma dude!

TC

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 6:28am:

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:36pm: ..I believe that Dr. Maschke is aware that the parts of his book dealing with attempted countermeasures has been translated into Farsi and Eastern Persian.... That's the first I've heard of it. Who told you this?

George,
as usual it's the world according to Sancho! You should, however consult him as he is an expert in almost everything.
He believes I'm a liar, maybe he knows something about you that you don't  even know. Kinda lie a built in polygraph!!  :D

Dr. Maschke. I was evidently in error regarding the specific languages that Al Queda uses to inform its terrorists of the content of your book. I'm not the expert in Near Eastern Languages. You Are.  However, my error really doesn't  change the fact that according to your own posting;

[quote] Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Jan 9th, 2006, 2:46pm    Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. ['quote]

Wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to conclude from your post that your work has been, or is being, used to educate terrorists and that you are well aware of it?  

Hypothetically, should one of these terrorists trash a set of polygraph charts using your lies and countermeasures to the point that the test was inconclusive and then go on to strap explosives  to himself and detonate them in a restaurant where your family happened to be having lunch murdering them and many others, would you regret in any way your participation in their deaths?

To the rest of you here. How exactly would you feel about polygraph countermeasures if they were involved in any way in the death of someone you loved?


Mr. Cullen what exactly are you claiming is a FALSE accusation?


Sancho Panza

S.P.,

A more fundamental and (I believe) more important question than the last one you ask regarding CM's ("How exactly would you feel about polygraph countermeasures if they were involved in any way in the death of someone you loved?") is the following related one involving polygraphy itself: "How exactly would you feel if polygraphy was involved in any way in the death of someone you loved?"  For reference you might imagine yourself in the shoes of the family members of Gary Ridgway's many victims.  

Of course it is not this type of (false negative) error that justifies the CMs you ask about, but the false positive errors that have stung so many of the participants on this message board.

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 6:31pm:

Dr. Maschke. I was evidently in error regarding the specific languages that Al Queda uses to inform its terrorists of the content of your book. I'm not the expert in Near Eastern Languages. You Are.  However, my error really doesn't  change the fact that according to your own posting; Quote: Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector Jan 9th, 2006, 2:46pm    Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

I'm perplexed because you specifically suggested that portions of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector had been translated not just into "Farsi" (Persian as spoken in Iran) but also "Eastern Persian" (more commonly called Dari, the dialect of Persian spoken in Afghanistan). For all intents and purposes, both are written the same, so a translation into one would be the same as a translation into the other, just as a translation into American English would differ but little from a translation into British English.

The article to which you refer, "The Myth of the Lie Detector," (discussed here) was written in Arabic, and it's not a translation of any portion of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, though it's obviously derived in part from it.


Quote:

Wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to conclude from your post that your work has been, or is being, used to educate terrorists and that you are well aware of it?

I think there can be no doubt but that the author of "The Myth of the Lie Detector" used The Lie Behind the Lie Detector as a source. And of course I was previously aware of it. After all, it was me who posted the news.


Quote:

Hypothetically, should one of these terrorists trash a set of polygraph charts using your lies and countermeasures to the point that the test was inconclusive and then go on to strap explosives  to himself and detonate them in a restaurant where your family happened to be having lunch murdering them and many others, would you regret in any way your participation in their deaths?

There are no lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Terrorists can use the information provided therein not only to cause inconclusive results, but also to pass the polygraph while lying about relevant issues.

In the scenario you outline, I would affix blame for the security breach squarely on those who -- rejecting the scientific consensus that polygraphy is without scientific basis and not robust against countermeasures -- had the hubris to continue relying on this pseudoscience for national security purposes.

Sancho Panza

So Al Qaeda has read the information on this site. As I said before, they had the same CMs before this site went up and the Russians before that.

As to your last question. I would not feel badly at this site. I would feel bad at the polygraph industry and our federal government for knowingly placing any credibility in the results of a one man/one machine decision. A decision that's rendered useless by simple mental manuevers. "However, this will never happen because you people are going to catch these dudes when they attempt CMs".

Quote:

I would feel bad at the polygraph industry and our federal government for knowingly placing any credibility in the results of a one man/one machine decision.

Which they do for the sake of bureaucratic/administrative expediency.  As for the politicians, there is absolutely no political price to pay for continuing to support the use of the polygraph.  

The public still thinks it works.  So does the media. There must be change on that front, before any real change will take place.  Most people will never, ever have to take a polygraph.  It will take a "smoking gun" causing a media frenzy feeding a public outcry for any changes to take place.

In the meantime, we need to continue to focus our attention of helping those that do have to take the test, and continue to expose the myth.

TC

P.S.  If you disagree with me, then you sir, must be an Iranian child molester!

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 6:31pm:

Dr. Maschke. I was evidently in error regarding the specific languages that Al Queda uses to inform its terrorists of the content of your book. I'm not the expert in Near Eastern Languages. You Are.  However, my error really doesn't  change the fact that according to your own posting; [quote] Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector Jan 9th, 2006, 2:46pm    Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. ['quote] Wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to conclude from your post that your work has been, or is being, used to educate terrorists and that you are well aware of it?   Hypothetically, should one of these terrorists trash a set of polygraph charts using your lies and countermeasures to the point that the test was inconclusive and then go on to strap explosives  to himself and detonate them in a restaurant where your family happened to be having lunch murdering them and many others, would you regret in any way your participation in their deaths? To the rest of you here. How exactly would you feel about polygraph countermeasures if they were involved in any way in the death of someone you loved? Mr. Cullen what exactly are you claiming is a FALSE accusation? Sancho Panza

SANCHO!!! you error ??? No it cannot be.
What you do have is a massive imagination. You should know that no person who remotely would have opportunity to bomb any one would be allowed such access only on the results of your silly machine. Fortunately, even though you don't get it most in actual security sensitive positions do.
Besides.... you have said repeatedly that countermeasures only increase the chances of failure therefore wouldn't that help?
No response needed I'm sure

getrealalready wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:

S.P., A more fundamental and (I believe) more important question than the last one you ask regarding CM's ("How exactly would you feel about polygraph countermeasures if they were involved in any way in the death of someone you loved?") is the following related one involving polygraphy itself: "How exactly would you feel if polygraphy was involved in any way in the death of someone you loved?"  For reference you might imagine yourself in the shoes of the family members of Gary Ridgway's many victims.   Of course it is not this type of (false negative) error that justifies the CMs you ask about, but the false positive errors that have stung so many of the participants on this message board.

Based on Sancho's posts he would feel that those victims are "acceptable casualties" of polygraph because of the ( as he puts it) countless criminals that have been convicted from what he believes to be polygraph evidence.
Hmmmmm, I wonder if he would feel the same if Gary slaughtered his daughter after passing a polygraph?
Or,  would he just caulk it up to " operator error"

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 7:20pm:

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 at 6:31pm: Dr. Maschke. I was evidently in error regarding the specific languages that Al Queda uses to inform its terrorists of the content of your book. I'm not the expert in Near Eastern Languages. You Are.  However, my error really doesn't  change the fact that according to your own posting; Quote: Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector Jan 9th, 2006, 2:46pm    Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I'm perplexed because you specifically suggested that portions of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector had been translated not just into "Farsi" (Persian as spoken in Iran) but also "Eastern Persian" (more commonly called Dari, the dialect of Persian spoken in Afghanistan). For all intents and purposes, both are written the same, so a translation into one would be the same as a translation into the other, just as a translation into American English would differ but little from a translation into British English. The article to which you refer, "The Myth of the Lie Detector," (discussed here) was written in Arabic, and it's not a translation of any portion of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, though it's obviously derived in part from it. [quote]Wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to conclude from your post that your work has been, or is being, used to educate terrorists and that you are well aware of it?

I think there can be no doubt but that the author of "The Myth of the Lie Detector" used The Lie Behind the Lie Detector as a source. And of course I was previously aware of it. After all, it was me who posted the news.


Quote:

Hypothetically, should one of these terrorists trash a set of polygraph charts using your lies and countermeasures to the point that the test was inconclusive and then go on to strap explosives  to himself and detonate them in a restaurant where your family happened to be having lunch murdering them and many others, would you regret in any way your participation in their deaths?

There are no lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Terrorists can use the information provided therein not only to cause inconclusive results, but also to pass the polygraph while lying about relevant issues.

In the scenario you outline, I would affix blame for the security breach squarely on those who -- rejecting the scientific consensus that polygraphy is without scientific basis and not robust against countermeasures -- had the hubris to continue relying on this pseudoscience for national security purposes.[/quote]


There is all kinds of information available to every one. What they do with it is their own doing.
Do we not make medical references unavailable because, some people may use the information to self medicate and die or to perform surgery that they are not trained to do?
There are countries that do. We happen to not be one of them.

If the information in George's book is valid ( and judging by Sancho's remarks I'm sure it is) then the polygraph industry is responsible to patch the security problem not expect that no one else could possibly discover it and continue to use the "test" as if it were accurate. Especially in national security sensitive areas.

So Dr. Maschke, You write a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it is OK to lie and tries to teach the reader how to successfully lie, but if someone then uses your advice, obtains release and murders your family, you claim you have no share in the responsibility?  That's a pile of fertilizer and you know it.

It's obvious you value your self annointed position as the anti-polygraph guru more than you value your family. Do they know that?  Twoblock, Notguilty1, Mr. Cullen, if you agree with Dr. Maschke on this I can now understand why my comments regarding integrity appeared so far beyond your comprehension.

How do you know that Gary Ridgeway didn't use some type af counter measure with a polygraph examiner who was untrained in spotting them. Whose fault would him passing his test be? I'm betting each and everyone of will refuse to point a single finger at whoever gave Ridgeway the advice.

I would imagine that you all believe that nothing that has ever happened to you has ever been the result of your own actions. You have a deep seated need to blame others for anything that might be your own fault. You probably blame meter maids for your parking tickets and Leprechans for insufficient green marshmellow clovers in your "lucky Charms"

I'm going to leave this board for awhile. I'm sure that you will spend the next few days patting yourselves on the back and gloating that you chased me out of here. For the record, the real reason I'm leaving is that your immoral stench would knock a flock of buzzards off of a gut wagon and I am going to seek the company of those who don't make me want to puke. I know that whether I come back 2 days, 20 years or never,   2 things will be guarenteed.  #1 Polygraph will still be in use, gaining in popularity and  court acceptance and #2 You guys will still be here whining. You couldn't organize the closure of a lemonade stand much less do away with polygraph.

DR. Maschke you may delete this post if the truth hurts too much. Although if you do, I would expect you to manufacture some bogus reason for deletion.

You may now commence to wallow and grunt amoung yourselves.  

SanchoPanza ;D

Spoken like a true whining looser who can't address the answers to his questions to which he asked for a response. Go catch those evil terrorist dudes who are using CMs to thwart your whole industry or join the pity party that is probably going on at the APA website.

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 12:27am:

So Dr. Maschke, You write a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it is OK to lie and tries to teach the reader how to successfully lie, but if someone then uses your advice, obtains release and murders your family, you claim you have no share in the responsibility?  That's a pile of fertilizer and you know it. It's obvious you value your self annointed position as the anti-polygraph guru more than you value your family. Do they know that?  Twoblock, Notguilty1, Mr. Cullen, if you agree with Dr. Maschke on this I can now understand why my comments regarding integrity appeared so far beyond your comprehension. How do you know that Gary Ridgeway didn't use some type af counter measure with a polygraph examiner who was untrained in spotting them. Whose fault would him passing his test be? I'm betting each and everyone of will refuse to point a single finger at whoever gave Ridgeway the advice. I would imagine that you all believe that nothing that has ever happened to you has ever been the result of your own actions. You have a deep seated need to blame others for anything that might be your own fault. You probably blame meter maids for your parking tickets and Leprechans for insufficient green marshmellow clovers in your "lucky Charms" I'm going to leave this board for awhile. I'm sure that you will spend the next few days patting yourselves on the back and gloating that you chased me out of here. For the record, the real reason I'm leaving is that your immoral stench would knock a flock of buzzards off of a gut wagon and I am going to seek the company of those who don't make me want to puke. I know that whether I come back 2 days, 20 years or never,   2 things will be guarenteed.  #1 Polygraph will still be in use, gaining in popularity and  court acceptance and #2 You guys will still be here whining. You couldn't organize the closure of a lemonade stand much less do away with polygraph. DR. Maschke you may delete this post if the truth hurts too much. Although if you do, I would expect you to manufacture some bogus reason for deletion. You may now commence to wallow and grunt amoung yourselves.   SanchoPanza ;D

Well now that the big wind has blown over he is if nothing else consistent in his delusion.
In this particular post he wants us to believe  that Gary Ridgeways passing his poly must be Georges fault!! Not to mention his subsequent victim's

So, to recap:

If some one fails the poly and tells the truth he must be lying or an acceptable casualt.

If some one passes the poly by lying it must be George's fault.

If someone uses any information that allows them to defeat a ploy regardless if they figured it out on their own or not and goes on to continue his crimes. It cannot be that the "test" is full of holes again.....
IT MUST BE GEORGE'S FAULT.

Any evidence that shows that polygraph is not a valid test as used is aiding the terrorists and child molesters and not valid information that needs to be addressed.

Any one that has been victimized by this pseudo-science that speaks out in any way should not say a word so that the scam can continue.

If you failed a test stop whining and look DEEP inside because you must be hiding something Sancho knows that.

Sancho is an expert on ALL things so don't bother debating him.

When the masses come out and put Sancho on the hot seat he feels very alone and leaves to go to where he is appreciated.

WOW!! I know why he's leaving he must be exhausted !! ;D ;D ;D

Sancho Panza

Further to my last post. You probably won't admit it, but our interaction started off as a fairly intelligent debate. One of my hobbies has always been debating. I didn't belittle you even though you did me. When I called you on it you retracted it and the debate continued in an adult manor. You just happened to pick a subject or two in which I am well versed. Particularly particle accelerators. When it appeared that you had a matched opponent, you went childish on me and I will admit I started responding in kind. Your last post was completely adolescent.

Just wanted to let you and everyone else know that you started the downward trend.

BTW - I will stack my honesty and integrity with yours any and every day.

Twoblock wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 1:49am:

Sancho Panza Further to my last post. You probably won't admit it, but our interaction started off as a fairly intelligent debate. One of my hobbies has always been debating. I didn't belittle you even though you did me. When I called you on it you retracted it and the debate continued in an adult manor. You just happened to pick a subject or two in which I am well versed. Particularly particle accelerators. When it appeared that you had a matched opponent, you went childish on me and I will admit I started responding in kind. Your last post was completely adolescent. Just wanted to let you and everyone else know that you started the downward trend. BTW - I will stack my honesty and integrity with yours any and every day.

Twoblock,

I agree with you. Sancho tried matching wits using languages with me I guess in an attempt to show his supposed intelligence.
When I responded in a language ( my first language) I was told that it was untranslatable ;D and that was the last attempt at language.
This is his approach, make your opponent feel as if they cannot possibly match wits with him.
He forgets or apparently didn't know that there are educated and informed people here and so his method fails.
The approach is also, take the attention off the case at hand and on ANY thing else. Again, here he fails because we are all not here to argue language or particle accelerators but the invalidity of polygraph.
I am sure he underestimated the intelligence, education and debate ability of the posters here.
;) ;)

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 29^th, 2008 at 12:27am:

So Dr. Maschke, You write a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it is OK to lie and tries to teach the reader how to successfully lie, but if someone then uses your advice, obtains release and murders your family, you claim you have no share in the responsibility?  That's a pile of fertilizer and you know it.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector doesn't argue that it's "OK" to lie about relevant issues, nor was it written for the purpose of teaching readers how to successfully lie. We wrote it to educate the public about the risks and dangers associated with this fraudulent pseudoscience and to provide the truthful with a means of protecting themselves against the very serious risk of a false positive outcome.

Perhaps your perspective on this is skewed by the fact that you derive income from giving polygraph tests. Yes, I know, you haven't stated that you're a polygraph examiner. But it's writ large between the lines of your posts.

In your hypothetical scenario wherein terrorists use information from The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to thwart security measures and carry out a deadly attack, what responsibility would you attach to those who -- scoffing at the scientific consensus that polygraphy is without scientific basis and is not robust against countermeasures -- blithely continue to rely on this pseudoscience for national security purposes?


Quote:

It's obvious you value your self annointed position as the anti-polygraph guru more than you value your family. Do they know that?...

Following your logic and using your aforementioned scenario, one might argue that polygraphers who support polygraph security screening despite its lack of validity and vulnerability to countermeasures, value their jobs more than they value their families. But I don't think that's a reasonable argument to make.


Quote:

How do you know that Gary Ridgeway didn't use some type af counter measure with a polygraph examiner who was untrained in spotting them. Whose fault would him passing his test be? I'm betting each and everyone of will refuse to point a single finger at whoever gave Ridgeway the advice.

According to Ridgeway's attorney, Eric Lindell, "He didn't do anything special to pass it. He just relaxed."


Quote:

I would imagine that you all believe that nothing that has ever happened to you has ever been the result of your own actions. You have a deep seated need to blame others for anything that might be your own fault. You probably blame meter maids for your parking tickets and Leprechans for insufficient green marshmellow clovers in your "lucky Charms"

Or perhaps you have a psychological need to belittle and demean those who have been the victims of polygraphy to rationalize your practice of this pseudoscience.


Quote:

I'm going to leave this board for awhile. I'm sure that you will spend the next few days patting yourselves on the back and gloating that you chased me out of here. For the record, the real reason I'm leaving is that your immoral stench would knock a flock of buzzards off of a gut wagon and I am going to seek the company of those who don't make me want to puke. I know that whether I come back 2 days, 20 years or never,   2 things will be guarenteed.  #1 Polygraph will still be in use, gaining in popularity and  court acceptance and #2 You guys will still be here whining. You couldn't organize the closure of a lemonade stand much less do away with polygraph.

Somehow, I suspect that despite your professed aversion to our "moral stench," you'll continue to regularly peruse these forums.


Quote:

DR. Maschke you may delete this post if the truth hurts too much. Although if you do, I would expect you to manufacture some bogus reason for deletion.

You prospectively cast yourself as the victim of censorship. But have I deleted any of your posts here? Ever? No.

Quote:

I'm going to leave this board for awhile. I'm sure that you will spend the next few days patting yourselves on the back and gloating that you chased me out of here. For the record, the real reason I'm leaving is that your immoral stench would knock a flock of buzzards off of a gut wagon and I am going to seek the company of those who don't make me want to puke. I know that whether I come back 2 days, 20 years or never,   2 things will be guarenteed.  #1 Polygraph will still be in use, gaining in popularity and  court acceptance and #2 You guys will still be here whining. You couldn't organize the closure of a lemonade stand much less do away with polygraph.

Enjoy your sabbatical.

You left out #3:  And the polygraph will STILL be bogus, pseudo-scientific hogwash!   Good old fashioned flim-flam, a carnival freak show, fit for the Maury Povich (sp?)and Dr. Phil shows.  

Yeah, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh!

TC

Wow! That Sancho guys is something, huh? I think he said something along these lines earlier:

"Why should someone who wants to pass a polygraph examination seek advice on how to pass one, from a group of people who failed? It's kind of like getting tips on how to pass a field sobriety test from a bunch of convicted drunk drivers."

Well I would like to say that poor Sancho is dead wrong once again, because guess what.... I just frickin' passed my stupid polygraph after coming to this site and hearing about other people's experiences, reading the book. And no, I didn't use countermeasures. I think it helped just to know about the process. It really did like feel like more of an interrogation. Once I knew that they were just trying to get a rise out of me to get information, I didn't get psyched out about the confrontational manner of the investigator. I now knew that was just part of their game and I didn't let it get to me, stayed calm, and I PASSED!

So no matter what narrow minded people like Sancho say, this site is valuable and it helps people. I am living proof.

Thanks George!

Poly-ana, Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

Every polygraph examiner on this board tells people that they should tell the truth and avoid attempting countermeasures to pass their exams.  I also encourage people to tell  the truth and to not use countermeasures to pass their exams.

Dr. Maschke tells people to lie and use countermeasures to pass their exams.

But instead of doing what Dr. Maschke advises, you decide instead to do what all of the examiners here recommended and I recommended and you tell the truth on your exam and choose not to use countermeasures,  lo and behold. YOU PASS.  

But you attribute your passing the exam to Dr. Maschke even though you didn't follow his advice.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

If you want an idea of what happens to people who follow Dr. Maschke's advice, see the posts by kpminan


Sancho Panza

Quote:

Every polygraph examiner on this board tells people that they should tell the truth and avoid attempting countermeasures to pass their exams.  I also encourage people to tell  the truth and to not use countermeasures to pass their exams. Dr. Maschke tells people to lie and use countermeasures to pass their exams. But instead of doing what Dr. Maschke advises, you decide instead to do what all of the examiners here recommended and I recommended and you tell the truth on your exam and choose not to use countermeasures,  lo and behold. YOU PASS.   But you attribute your passing the exam to Dr. Maschke even though you didn't follow his advice. That doesn't make any sense at all. If you want an idea of what happens to people who follow Dr. Maschke's advice, see the posts by kpminan Sancho Panza

Polyanna attributed her passing to learning that the polygraph is not a "test" but an "interrogation".  That the whole purpose is to extract information, not measuring the level of her truthfulness.  Something that NO polygazer on this board has ever admitted to:


Quote:

Well I would like to say that poor Sancho is dead wrong once again, because guess what.... I just frickin' passed my stupid polygraph after coming to this site and hearing about other people's experiences, reading the book. And no, I didn't use countermeasures. I think it helped just to know about the process. It really did like feel like more of an interrogation. Once I knew that they were just trying to get a rise out of me to get information, I didn't get psyched out about the confrontational manner of the investigator. I now knew that was just part of their game and I didn't let it get to me, stayed calm, and I PASSED!

Same thing I've been saying for a long time.

TC

Mr. Cullen.

"Stay Calm, and Tell the Truth" and you'll pass the test.  That sounds more like a polygrapher talking than Dr. Maschke.  That isn't what he recommends at all. Another difference is that polygraphers don't tell people to try and cheat on their exam.


It occurs to me that since kpminam posted his statement of personal experiences here, there is now equal proof presented on this board that  countermeasures don't work and that polygraphers can detect countermeasure attempts as there is proof that Dr. Maschke told the truth on his first  polygraph test and failed anyway and that he wasn't attempting countermeasures on his second test when he was accused of trying to cheat. There is now equal proof presented on this board that  countermeasures don't work and that polygraphers can detect countermeasure attempts as there is proof that Notguilty1 told the truth on his polygraph test and failed anyway etc. etc. etc .

Dr. Mascke, the analogy refers to the sword you ran through kpminam with your false teachings and your refusal to acknowledge any responsibility for the consequences he suffered as a result of your bad advice.

Sancho Panza

Quote:

Mr. Cullen. "Stay Calm, and Tell the Truth" and you'll pass the test.  That sounds more like a polygrapher talking than Dr. Maschke.  That isn't what he recommends at all. Another difference is that polygraphers don't tell people to try and cheat on their exam. It occurs to me that since kpminam posted his statement of personal experiences here, there is now equal proof presented on this board that  countermeasures don't work and that polygraphers can detect countermeasure attempts as there is proof that Dr. Maschke told the truth on his first  polygraph test and failed anyway and that he wasn't attempting countermeasures on his second test when he was accused of trying to cheat. There is now equal proof presented on this board that  countermeasures don't work and that polygraphers can detect countermeasure attempts as there is proof that Notguilty1 told the truth on his polygraph test and failed anyway etc. etc. etc . Dr. Mascke, the analogy refers to the sword you ran through kpminam with your false teachings and your refusal to acknowledge any responsibility for the consequences he suffered as a result of your bad advice.

Knowing that the polygraph is not about detecting deception, but is in fact simply an interrogation strategy with the goal of extracting information will be helpful whether or not CM are employed.  I've used the used car lot analogy.  It would be important to know that the sales person's job is to extract the most money possible from you (via final  price, options, financing, extra warranties ...etc) , and not really there to "help" you.  One would be a gullible fool, otherwise!

Actually believing the popular myth that the polygraph machine can detect lies, and thereby be duped into volunteering information the examiner can later us against them will not be helpful, whether or not CM are employed.  

TC

No Sancho. You do not at all understand what I am saying. I have taken the very same polygraph test 4 times in the past 8 months. Everytime they asked the same questions. Everytime I have given the same truthful answers. The first 3 times I got rattled by the investigator and ended up not passing. The forth time I was armed with the knowledge that the guy was purposefully trying to get under my skin and scare me into confessing things... even though there was nothing to confess to. So this time I didn't panic or get psyched out and lo and behold... I passed.

My experience is a perfect example of how the polygraph test is a load of malarchy. I was asked the exact same questions and gave the exact same answers 4 separate times and got totally different results. 2 failures, 1 inconclusive, and 1 passed. How can you explain that? It is obvious that the ploygraph cannot detect truth or lies... period.

wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:23pm:

No Sancho. You do not at all understand what I am saying. I have taken the very same polygraph test 4 times in the past 8 months. Everytime they asked the same questions. Everytime I have given the same truthful answers. The first 3 times I got rattled by the investigator and ended up not passing. The forth time I was armed with the knowledge that the guy was purposefully trying to get under my skin and scare me into confessing things... even though there was nothing to confess to. So this time I didn't panic or get psyched out and lo and behold... I passed. My experience is a perfect example of how the polygraph test is a load of malarchy. I was asked the exact same questions and gave the exact same answers 4 separate times and got totally different results. 2 failures, 1 inconclusive, and 1 passed. How can you explain that? It is obvious that the ploygraph cannot detect truth or lies... period.

I'm sure we will not hear any more from Ol Sancho on this one or... he'll come out with some BS line to justify his silly machine.
So what will it be Sancho?
Polyana is NOT the first person who took multiple polygraphs with different results!  
Can it be that Polygraphs do NOTHING to detect lies?? NO that can't be !! ;D ;D ;D

Poly-ana, before I respond let me see if I correctly understand what you are saying.
You say you took 4 polygraph tests.
Was it for the same agency?  
Was it the same examiner each time?

You say the questions were the same on each exam.
By that do you mean that all of the questions asked on each examination were the same as all of the other three  examinations?

What exactly do you mean by "rattled by the investigator" and when and where did this "rattling" occur in relation to the time you were connected and answering questions?  By "rattled",  I presume you mean an attempt by the investigator to intimidate you, if that is incorrect please describe what you mean by the phrase "rattled by the investigator"

Do you live in a state that requires polygraph examiners to be licensed and certified? In a recent case discussed on this board it was learned that a fake polygraph exam was administered by an untrained detective. Is that a possibility in your case?

If you can clear some of this up, I'll discuss it with an examiner and try to answer your questions as clearly as possible.
Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:56pm:

Poly-ana, before I respond let me see if I correctly understand what you are saying. You say you took 4 polygraph tests. Was it for the same agency?   Was it the same examiner each time? You say the questions were the same on each exam. By that do you mean that all of the questions asked on each examination were the same as all of the other three  examinations? What exactly do you mean by "rattled by the investigator" and when and where did this "rattling" occur in relation to the time you were connected and answering questions?  By "rattled",  I presume you mean an attempt by the investigator to intimidate you, if that is incorrect please describe what you mean by the phrase "rattled by the investigator" Do you live in a state that requires polygraph examiners to be licensed and certified? In a recent case discussed on this board it was learned that a fake polygraph exam was administered by an untrained detective. Is that a possibility in your case? If you can clear some of this up, I'll discuss it with an examiner and try to answer your questions as clearly as possible. Sancho Panza

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D   I KNEW IT!!!!
WHAT A FOOL!!!  YOU JUST CANNOT ACCEPT THAT POLYGRAPH CANNOT AND NEVER HAS DETECTED LIES!!
SHE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS YES, SAME QUESTIONS EACH TIME. WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD DIFFERENT EXAMINERS MAKE? IF THE "TEST" IS VAILD IT SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.
I KNEW HE WOULD COME BACK WITH SOME LAME POST  ;D ;D ;D ;D
At least your predictable Sancho! And ..... amusing too  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I've been relating my experiences on this board for several years, and they are similar to the OP's.

I was given four pre-employment polygraphs by three different agencies (one was the Connecticut State Police, the other two were private firms).  I was asked the same questions in all four tests and gave all the same answers, since it is easy to be consistent when you are being truthful.  I failed the first three and passed the fourth.

Sancho appears to be surprised by the OP's story to the point that he is willing to check with some examiners to find out how and why such a thing might occur.  

I can save him the trouble.  Such a thing occurs because the polygraph does not detect truth or deception.  If it did I would passed all four polygraphs instead of failing the first three.

Dr. Maschke,  would you kindly tie this maladroit buffoon to a hitching post while I attempt to find answers to poly-ana's question?


notguilty1 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 2:28am:

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 10:56pm: Poly-ana, before I respond let me see if I correctly understand what you are saying. You say you took 4 polygraph tests. Was it for the same agency?   Was it the same examiner each time? You say the questions were the same on each exam. By that do you mean that all of the questions asked on each examination were the same as all of the other three  examinations? What exactly do you mean by "rattled by the investigator" and when and where did this "rattling" occur in relation to the time you were connected and answering questions?  By "rattled",  I presume you mean an attempt by the investigator to intimidate you, if that is incorrect please describe what you mean by the phrase "rattled by the investigator" Do you live in a state that requires polygraph examiners to be licensed and certified? In a recent case discussed on this board it was learned that a fake polygraph exam was administered by an untrained detective. Is that a possibility in your case? If you can clear some of this up, I'll discuss it with an examiner and try to answer your questions as clearly as possible. Sancho Panza Notguilty1 wrote [quote] I KNEW IT!!!! WHAT A FOOL!!!  YOU JUST CANNOT ACCEPT THAT POLYGRAPH CANNOT AND NEVER HAS DETECTED LIES!! SHE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS YES, SAME QUESTIONS EACH TIME. WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD DIFFERENT EXAMINERS MAKE? IF THE "TEST" IS VAILD IT SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. I KNEW HE WOULD COME BACK WITH SOME LAME POST At least your predictable Sancho! And ..... amusing too

Thank you
Sancho Panza

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 3:46am:

I've been relating my experiences on this board for several years, and they are similar to the OP's. I was given four pre-employment polygraphs by three different agencies (one was the Connecticut State Police, the other two were private firms).  I was asked the same questions in all four tests and gave all the same answers, since it is easy to be consistent when you are being truthful.  I failed the first three and passed the fourth. Sancho appears to be surprised by the OP's story to the point that he is willing to check with some examiners to find out how and why such a thing might occur.   I can save him the trouble.  Such a thing occurs because the polygraph does not detect truth or deception.  If it did I would passed all four polygraphs instead of failing the first three.

Sergeant If you took your personal knowledge about polygraph and its underlying principles and put it in a matchbox, you would still have room for a marching band and the Underdog balloon from the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade.

As I said earlier
"It occurs to me that since kpminam posted his statement of personal experiences here, there is now equal proof presented on this board that  countermeasures don't work and that polygraphers can detect countermeasure attempts as there is proof that Dr. Maschke told the truth on his first  polygraph test and failed anyway and that he wasn't attempting countermeasures on his second test when he was accused of trying to cheat. There is now equal proof presented on this board that  countermeasures don't work and that polygraphers can detect countermeasure attempts as there is proof that Notguilty1 told the truth on his polygraph test and failed anyway etc. etc. etc ."

You are one of the etceteras.

Sancho Panza

Polyanna,

Did you have the same thing for breakfast prior to each of the four polygraphs?

Perhaps the stars were not aligned properly.  What was the level of sunspot activity on those days?

I just can't understand it.  Ordinarily, the test is 98% accurate.  That is what was reported on the Dr. Phil Show, and in the tabloids.  Former top FBI polygrapher Mr. Demarco  reported a 98% accuracy rate on the "O'Reilly Factor" on FNN.  Are you calling him a liar!

Maybe YOU ARE THE LIAR!  Maybe you've just come here to smear an entire industry.  Who put you up to this?  Al Qaeda?

Of course you realize I am being sarcastic.

TC

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 4:01am:

Sergeant If you took your personal knowledge about polygraph and its underlying principles and put it in a matchbox, you would still have room for a marching band and the Underdog balloon from the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. Sancho Panza

Nothing in your flippant non-answer addresses the continuing problem of people like me who tell the truth and fail.  I told the truth on four separate exams and failed the first three.  Now I listen as polygraph supporters endlessly repeat their mantra that the polygraph is highly accurate.  An accurate test would be able to identify truth or deception.  The polygraph does neither.

I once had a fortune teller at a carnival tell me she was never wrong.  Then she ran through what was obviously a series of guesses about me and the girl I was with at the time, all of which were incorrect.  
My knowledge of fortune telling and its underlying principles is certainly less extensive than that of some other people, but I can tell you from personal experience it is not accurate.  

I'm sure there are many others more qualified than I to critique the polygraph - I have never claimed anything else is true.  But I know I gave all the same truthful answers on four different exams, failing the first three and passing the fourth.  None of that would be possible if the polygraph was a scientifically valid detector of truth or deception.

There is an obvious trend among pro-polygraph people to continually attack or dismiss the opinions of anyone who believes the polygraph is not accurate.  These attacks and dismissals usually cite the poster's lack of scientific training or lack of polygraph-specific training.  Such attacks and dismissals are nothing more than ad hominem attacks, targeting the poster's background rather than the ideas or opinions put forth by the poster.

Attempting to assassinate the character and/or background of posters with whom you disagree rarely indicates that you are debating from a position of strength.

Quote:

Attempting to assassinate the character and/or background of posters with whom you disagree rarely indicates that you are debating from a position of strength.

But it is good he comes and posts here for all the many lurkers to see.

TC

Sergeant1107


Did your examiners identify the same or different issues as the problem area when you were told you failed?  How many relevant issues/questions on your tests?  

Sergeant, Who was the poster here today who first claimed to have the definitive answer to a question he wasn’t asked and then in his  very next post admits he is unqualified to provide a definitive answer?
Hint: {identify the author of the following quotes}


Quote:

I can save him the trouble.  Such a thing occurs because the polygraph does not detect truth or deception.  If it did I would passed all four polygraphs instead of failing the first three

Quote:

I'm sure there are many others more qualified than I to critique the polygraph

Let me put your polygraph qualifications in a different context. You are highly trained, and very experienced in traffic collision reconstruction are you not?

Perhaps you attended the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses
Accident Investigation I  - 10 days
Accident Investigation II -20 days
Or perhaps you received your basic accident investigation training from the Connecticut State Police. I’m not familiar with their specific training, but I would imagine it is at least the best in the state and easily more than enough to prepare you for Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses
Accident Reconstruction I  - 5 days
Accident Reconstruction II -10 days

Between your basic instruction and reconstruction training I’m betting you had several years on the road working wrecks and gaining experience. You must have displayed a certain aptitude for collision investigation and reconstruction because I’m betting that everybody in your agency doesn’t get to attend reconstruction training.

If you did all your training at Northwestern, you could start calling yourself an accident reconstruction specialist and some might refer to you as the new department expert after 9 weeks training.  (Side note:  most basic polygraph schools are running 10-11 weeks now) Of course your training doesn’t stop there, you surely attend continuing education course specific to accident reconstruction every year i.e. pedestrian accidents, black box analysis, vehicle/train, etc to supplement your knowledge and improve your skills.

So here you are an authority on accident reconstruction with the credentials to back it up and you are discussing a fatality collision and stating that in your expert opinion the equations and observations used to determine vehicle velocity before and at the point of impact are an accurate means of determining speed and that in the accident under discussion the defendant was traveling at approximately 30 mph over the speed limit at point of impact when he T-boned a van full of kids on their way home from day care.

In rebuttal, a guy stands up to dispute your findings and he makes the following statement. “I have never been to accident investigation training, but I read a book about it once. I have personally been involved in four fatality collisions. In 3 of those collisions the accident reconstruction expert claimed that I was speeding but I wasn’t. In the 4th collision the expert said I wasn’t speeding and he was right. Still being right once and wrong three times proves that all of this accident reconstruction stuff is voodoo. If it was any good it would have proved that I wasn’t speeding every time I said I wasn’t speeding because I WASN”T SPEEDING. Besides, this guy who is supposed to be an expert (referring to you) said that the defendant was traveling approximately 30 mph over the speed limit. If his science was valid he would be able to tell the difference between 29, 30, and 31 mph. I have heard of cases where the speed estimates have been off by more than 20 mph. This proves his tests are not accurate. Besides I heard those accident reconstruction guys cannot specifically determine a driver’s Perception Reaction Time in a particular collision and this introduces a variable that prevents anyone from knowing exactly how fast he was going. Oh, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night

Sergeant, Based on the above scenario, the question before you is; do you really believe that anyone with genuine knowledge or training in accident investigation is going to accept this guy as a credible authority on collisions?

Sancho Panza   

Although this seems pointless and I don't think Sancho will ever understand what anyone here is saying, I will go ahead and provide more information to further prove my point:

Yes, same agency. A very large DOD agency that has been conducting polygraphs for decades. In fact, to add more background I have been working at this agency since 1986 so this is not my first go round. This was my forth periodic reinvestigation so including my pre-employment screening, it was my fifth round of undergoing the polygraph. During my last reinvestigation 5 years ago, I failed my first poly and passed the second one. Another example of the test not being accurate.

Of course it was not the same examiner. I would imagine that they try and mix it up so nobody can blame their failures on any one examiner. And there is no doubt that examiners for this very large federal agency are trained and licensed.

I already said it was the same questions. They were the standard counterintelligence questions that everyone at this agency gets asked during their reinvestigation, the same ones I have been asked every 5 years since my employment.

By rattled, I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something. To an honest and sincere person, that is very upsetting... especially when your job depends on this stupid test. And yes, they were very intimidating. This occurred while I was hooked up to the machine, but in between the actual set of standard polygraph questions. I was only being tested on those standard questions and all the rattling occured in the breaks in between those questiosn.  

I appreciate the offer Sancho, but you really don't need to check with an examiner.  I think everyone here is clear on the fact that the polygraph is not accurate.

Oh, and that crazy auto accident investigator comparison, that just doesn't even make sense. How is a scientific practice based on physical evidence even remotely similar to a polygraph? You're really reaching now Sancho. Give it up already. It is obvious that you will never agree with anyone here, and they will certainly never agree with you.  

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 12:37pm:

Sergeant, Who was the poster here today who first claimed to have the definitive answer to a question he wasn’t asked and then in his  very next post admits he is unqualified to provide a definitive answer? Hint: {identify the author of the following quotes} Quote: I can save him the trouble.  Such a thing occurs because the polygraph does not detect truth or deception.  If it did I would passed all four polygraphs instead of failing the first three [quote]I'm sure there are many others more qualified than I to critique the polygraph

Let me put your polygraph qualifications in a different context. You are highly trained, and very experienced in traffic collision reconstruction are you not?

Perhaps you attended the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses
Accident Investigation I  - 10 days
Accident Investigation II -20 days
Or perhaps you received your basic accident investigation training from the Connecticut State Police. I’m not familiar with their specific training, but I would imagine it is at least the best in the state and easily more than enough to prepare you for Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses
Accident Reconstruction I  - 5 days
Accident Reconstruction II -10 days

Between your basic instruction and reconstruction training I’m betting you had several years on the road working wrecks and gaining experience. You must have displayed a certain aptitude for collision investigation and reconstruction because I’m betting that everybody in your agency doesn’t get to attend reconstruction training.

If you did all your training at Northwestern, you could start calling yourself an accident reconstruction specialist and some might refer to you as the new department expert after 9 weeks training.  (Side note:  most basic polygraph schools are running 10-11 weeks now) Of course your training doesn’t stop there, you surely attend continuing education course specific to accident reconstruction every year i.e. pedestrian accidents, black box analysis, vehicle/train, etc to supplement your knowledge and improve your skills.

So here you are an authority on accident reconstruction with the credentials to back it up and you are discussing a fatality collision and stating that in your expert opinion the equations and observations used to determine vehicle velocity before and at the point of impact are an accurate means of determining speed and that in the accident under discussion the defendant was traveling at approximately 30 mph over the speed limit at point of impact when he T-boned a van full of kids on their way home from day care.

In rebuttal, a guy stands up to dispute your findings and he makes the following statement. “I have never been to accident investigation training, but I read a book about it once. I have personally been involved in four fatality collisions. In 3 of those collisions the accident reconstruction expert claimed that I was speeding but I wasn’t. In the 4th collision the expert said I wasn’t speeding and he was right. Still being right once and wrong three times proves that all of this accident reconstruction stuff is voodoo. If it was any good it would have proved that I wasn’t speeding every time I said I wasn’t speeding because I WASN”T SPEEDING. Besides, this guy who is supposed to be an expert (referring to you) said that the defendant was traveling approximately 30 mph over the speed limit. If his science was valid he would be able to tell the difference between 29, 30, and 31 mph. I have heard of cases where the speed estimates have been off by more than 20 mph. This proves his tests are not accurate. Besides I heard those accident reconstruction guys cannot specifically determine a driver’s Perception Reaction Time in a particular collision and this introduces a variable that prevents anyone from knowing exactly how fast he was going. Oh, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night

Sergeant, Based on the above scenario, the question before you is; do you really believe that anyone with genuine knowledge or training in accident investigation is going to accept this guy as a credible authority on collisions?

Sancho Panza   
[/quote]

Sancho, let's assume you have attended a bigfoot training course carried out by the International Bigfoot Society

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/

(Sorry, but I don't know how to insert embedded links on this board).  Now comes Sancho riding his donkey Rucío, who claims bigfoot exists and that he has definite evidence bigfoot exists.

It's not necessary that I attend any training anywhere to tell you with 100% certainty bigfoot is a myth.  Then, when someone challenges the bigfoot myth Sancho rides away on Rucío and states, "I'll contact someone else in the "International Bigfoot Society" to prove there is a bigfoot!  

An accurate lie detector = bigfoot.  Both are a myth and do not exist.

Poly-ana, thank you for the clarification

First. According to the manuals available here, making accusations of lying during data collection is not an approved practice by the DOD. I hope you filed a complaint.

Second based on your description of your experience it seems as though your first tests may have had some trouble when they were submitted to quality control review which caused the reviewer to question the examiners findings. Otherwise I don't see why they would have scheduled you for another test so soon. They would probably just revoked your clearance and shown you the door.

Third although your description isn't very clear it appears you were given a TES which consists of 2 tests concerning 2 different relevant issues on each test and in your most recent tests, you remained calm and told the truth and you passed.

The key information is remain calm tell the truth and you will pass. Take Dr. Maschke's advice and attempt Countermeasures and you will get caught and fail.

As to why I am here, well if you go back to your first post in this thread, you will recall that you were seeking advice on how to go about cheating on your test,


wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 11:09pm:

I have been perusing this forum after a horrible polygraph experience. I can relate to most of the posts here. Rather than boring you with my story, I just have a question. I keep seeing people say things like: "The key to passing is to show stronger reactions to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. The best strategy for accomplishing this result is to covertly augment reactions to the "control" questions." In theory that makes complete sense. But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

but after reading all of the posts that you read (including mine) you decided to tell the truth and you passed.


Fourth, My comment directed to Sergeant is not an attempt to compare polygraph to collision reconstruction it is a discussion concerning whether or not a limited personal exposure to a procedure should be accepted as equal to training, knowledge and  experience in its application. To put it simply for you:  One or two rides in an airplane and reading a book about birds does not necessarily carry the same weight as a pilots license when discussing fuel consumption for a transcontinental flight.

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 5:00pm:

The key information is remain calm tell the truth and you will pass.

The best scientific minds have no confidence that this the case. Indeed, polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful in that the more candidly one answers the so-called control questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.


Quote:

Take Dr. Maschke's advice and attempt Countermeasures and you will get caught and fail.

On the basis of precisely what evidence do you assert this to be true?

meangina you make an interesting comment which more or less magnifies the same point that I was making with sergeant.
[quoteIt's not necessary that I attend any training anywhere to tell you with 100% certainty bigfoot is a myth. [/quote]  I understand the concept of faith, but I don't understand why you would exercise it one way or the other regarding the existence of a bigfoot.

If you have no basis of training or knowledge on the existence or non- existence of bigfoot and are relying only on the claim that he doesn't exist because you haven't seen one, then your opinion should not carry very much weight in a bigfoot discussion. Especially considering that since the early 1980s approximately 10,000 new species are discovered every year including 1-5 new birds and 1-5 new mammals.

I have no opinion on bigfoot one way or the other, perhaps time will tell.  I can tell you that I don't put more credence in unconfirmed bigfoot sightings than I do in unconfirmed claims that someone has told the truth and failed their polygraph.

Sancho Panza

Dr. Maschke, for the sake of this discussion I base this assertion on the statement of Kpminam. He described using the countermeasure that you teach in your book, he got caught, confronted and failed which cost him a career opportunity. It provides exactly the same quantity and quality of evidence that you provide to support your statement that you told the truth and failed one polygraph and that you didn't attempt countermeasures on another test.

Your only real response was that the examiner made a lucky guess. I can certainly see why you would hope that was the case beause you hate to be wrong, but that argument is pretty untenable.

Are you somehow claiming that his statement is a lie? If so I would ask what evidence you might have to support that assertion.

Sancho Panza

Let me add this modification to this post.

Dr. Maschke, just because you agree with them or they support your point of view does NOT mean they they are automatically "The Best Scientific Minds" it just means you like what they say. I'm sure you are aware that even election to the prestigeous National Academy of Sciences is a subjective process and allows ballots to be submitted by members completely outside the discipline for which the candidate is being considered.

SP

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 5:55pm:

Dr. Maschke, for the sake of this discussion I base this assertion on the statement of Kpminam.

No. Assuming kpnam's account to be true (as I do), it's a statistical sample of one. Which is statistically insignificant. For the sake of Truth, to which the polygraph community purports to be Dedicated, please explain on the basis of what evidence you made the positive assertion, "Take Dr. Maschke's advice and attempt Countermeasures and you will get caught and fail."

Quote:

A very large DOD agency that has been conducting polygraphs for decades. In fact, to add more background I have been working at this agency since 1986 so this is not my first go round. This was my forth periodic reinvestigation so including my pre-employment screening, it was my fifth round of undergoing the polygraph. During my last reinvestigation 5 years ago, I failed my first poly and passed the second one. Another example of the test not being accurate.

You can say it, NSA.  They got me too.


Quote:

This occurred while I was hooked up to the machine, but in between the actual set of standard polygraph questions. I was only being tested on those standard questions and all the rattling occured in the breaks in between those questiosn.

Like I've said, it is an INTERROGATION, not a test.  If it was a test, why the need for rattling (and therefore BIASING) the examinee between chart readings?  Just collect and analyze the data and make a pronouncement.


Quote:

that is very upsetting... especially when your job depends on this stupid test.

Your job is on the line ONLY if you play along and make any kind of admission or volunteer any information.  You know, when they are telling you to "get it all off your chest so nothing will be bothering you about the questions".

Check out the website of an DC attorney last name Cohen.  They CAN NOT fire you base solely on a polygraph CHART.  They CAN fire you based on admission elicited during the polygraph.  So zip the lip, tell them nothing is bothering you, you are answering truthfully.  No matter what they do (scream at you, jump up and down on their desk, scowl and make funny monkey noises...etc.)

BTW, this explains the high theatrics when they have a reaction on the chart, but no admission.

TC

S.P.,

You write in part:


Quote:

...I can tell you that I don't put more credence in unconfirmed bigfoot sightings than I do in unconfirmed claims that someone has told the truth and failed their polygraph....

There exist numerous documented false positive polygraph results in which the true positive culprit was later identified (e.g., Gary Ridgway/Green River serial murder case).  As far as I know there are no documented and generally accepted sightings of Bigfoot.  If you give the same/or like credence to a future claim of a false positive polygraph result as you do a future claim of a Bigfoot sighting you have no sense of probability and/or are a fool.

getrealalready wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 7:10pm:

S.P., You write in part: Quote: ...I can tell you that I don't put more credence in unconfirmed bigfoot sightings than I do in unconfirmed claims that someone has told the truth and failed their polygraph.... There exist numerous documented false positive polygraph results in which the true positive culprit was later identified (e.g., Gary Ridgway/Green River serial murder case).  As far as I know there are no documented and generally accepted sightings of Bigfoot.  If you give the same/or like credence to a future claim of a false positive polygraph result as you do a future claim of a Bigfoot sighting you have no sense of probability and/or are a fool.

Getrealalready, You need to get real already If what you say about Ridgeway is true, that would be a false negative rather than a false positive.  

You choosed  to ignore the word unconfirmed in my post in a feeble attempt to make a point even though it was in bold face  both times I used it.

For your information 1000 confirmed false positives or 1000 confirmed false negative reports, if they exist have absolutely ZERO bearing on the credibility of an unconfirmed report. If you think otherwise then you are the fool here not I. The plural of anecdote is not data.

In additition If you intend to post on bulletin boards in the future I think you should be fluent in at least one language, preferably the one in which you post.

Sancho Panza

Dr. Maschke, for over 8 years now you have made the positive assertion in your book that a person who uses the countermeasures described in your book will be able to  pass a polygraph without their attempts to manipulate the test being detected by the examiner.

Quote:

The countermeasures we’ve discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues

TLBTLD page 159.

It is easily understandable why examiners might not want to discuss their methods of detecting countermeasures with you because once you discovered that one of your countermeasure was being detected by a movement sensor you removed it from your repetoire of "no fail" cheating techniques.

Please explain on what basis you made that positive assertion. Any published field or laboratory research that identifies your book as the source material for countermeasures instruction should suffice.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:13pm:

Dr. Maschke, for over 8 years now you have made the positive assertion in your book that a person who uses the countermeasures described in your book will be able to  pass a polygraph without their attempts to manipulate the test being detected by the examiner. Quote: The countermeasures we’ve discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues TLBTLD page 159. It is easily understandable why examiners might not want to discuss their methods of detecting countermeasures with you because once you discovered that one of your countermeasure was being detected by a movement sensor you removed it from your repetoire of "no fail" cheating techniques. Please explain on what basis you made that positive assertion. Any published field or laboratory research that identifies your book as the source material for countermeasures instruction should suffice. Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

That polygraph operators cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is supported by peer-reviewed research cited, with full abstracts, therein. Skeptical readers are welcome (and encouraged) to examine that evidence and draw their own conclusions.

Now please -- at long last -- explain on the basis of precisely what evidence you assert,  "Take Dr. Maschke's advice and attempt Countermeasures and you will get caught and fail."

S.P.

I thought you would be more familiar with the background and media reports of such a well-known polygraph screw-up.  Although Gary Ridgway did represent a false negative result, at least one other (innocent) individual was wrongly found to be deceptive (false positive) in that case.  

It is due to to the confirmed false polygraph positives of the past that you should have some perspective regarding the probability of truth regarding future claims of unconfirmed polygraph false positives vs. a future claim of an unconfirmed sighting of Bigfoot.  

I am afraid you have narrowed the diagnosis.  You are a fool and an ignorant one at that.

Ha ha! Oh Sancho, you make me laugh. Your analogies really make no sense at all in relation to this conversation. It's laughable really.

No I did not file a complaint. They would probably be able to get around any such complaint because in fact they did not say "you are a liar" they just kept saying "are you a liar?.... what are you hiding... there must be something you are hiding". So while they may not have technically called me a liar, they just did their best to try to make me feel like one.

I see you are not very familiar with the goings on at my agency. They don't revoke clearances and show you the door after one failed polygraph. In my 20+ years of employment I have known numerous people who have had to retake the polygraph several times during a reinvestigation. I think even they know that they polygraph is too unreliable to get rid of people after one failed polygraph. If they did that, they would be losing a lot of people.

Wrong again all knowing one... there were actually 4 relevant issues explored during each of the 4 times I went in. The same 4 relevant issues each time.

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat. I came here looking for information. However, I will admit that I was feeling so frustrated and hopeless that I was looking into all possibilities.  

I still don't subscribe to your assumption that all you have to do is stay calm and tell the truth, because when I went in for my first test of this go round I was calm. I had been through this before and knew I had nothing to hide so I had nothing to worry about. And yet still I failled. The second and third time I was super stressed out and I think I really psyched myself out about it.

If being calm and telling the truth were fool proof, I would have passed the first time. Besides if the machine's results varied by the calmness of the subject, then can you really say it is really detecting truth or lies?  There are just too many human variables that come into play for any rational person to really think that the polygraph is an absolute measure of truth or lies.

Well, it is amusing to banter with you Sancho.... I still believe it to be pointless. So I am going to go on now and have a life. Maybe you should do the same?

wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 11:20pm:

Ha ha! Oh Sancho, you make me laugh. Your analogies really make no sense at all in relation to this conversation. It's laughable really. No I did not file a complaint. They would probably be able to get around any such complaint because in fact they did not say "you are a liar" they just kept saying "are you a liar?.... what are you hiding... there must be something you are hiding". So while they may not have technically called me a liar, they just did their best to try to make me feel like one. I see you are not very familiar with the goings on at my agency. They don't revoke clearances and show you the door after one failed polygraph. In my 20+ years of employment I have known numerous people who have had to retake the polygraph several times during a reinvestigation. I think even they know that they polygraph is too unreliable to get rid of people after one failed polygraph. If they did that, they would be losing a lot of people. Wrong again all knowing one... there were actually 4 relevant issues explored during each of the 4 times I went in. The same 4 relevant issues each time. I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat. I came here looking for information. However, I will admit that I was feeling so frustrated and hopeless that I was looking into all possibilities.   I still don't subscribe to your assumption that all you have to do is stay calm and tell the truth, because when I went in for my first test of this go round I was calm. I had been through this before and knew I had nothing to hide so I had nothing to worry about. And yet still I failled. The second and third time I was super stressed out and I think I really psyched myself out about it. If being calm and telling the truth were fool proof, I would have passed the first time. Besides if the machine's results varied by the calmness of the subject, then can you really say it is really detecting truth or lies?  There are just too many human variables that come into play for any rational person to really think that the polygraph is an absolute measure of truth or lies. Well, it is amusing to banter with you Sancho.... I still believe it to be pointless. So I am going to go on now and have a life. Maybe you should do the same?

Poly, You will never get Sancho to see the "truth" about his silly machine and the profession he defends.
His livelihood depends on his being right os at least making most people believe he is right. Thats how the scam works.
With the advent of the internet, people can do research on topics like this and low and behold..... the cover is off the scam.
Now, For his scam to continue to work he MUST make the casual observer believe that George and all that have actually experienced the ill effects of the scam( and many, like you on several occasions )
that we are all a bunch of lying whiners.
His ill intent is  increasingly apparent in his subsequent posts.
I am happy however to see that people like you come and tell their stories.
You are right BTW if your agency put any credence ( other than following policy) on polygraph, you and any one else with security clearances would be relieved of your duties on the first failed Poly...it would only make sense.
Seems like Sancho is the lone wolf in protecting this "technology"  ;D ;D ;D

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

In your post from 9:39 this morning you said

Quote:

I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something

now in your last post you say
Quote:

they did not say "you are a liar"

On your first post on this board you state

Quote:

But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

and then now you claim
Quote:

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat.

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


Sancho Panza

Dr. Maschke,

You statement
Quote:

That polygraph operators cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is supported by peer-reviewed research cited, with full abstracts, therein.

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

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

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

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

Sancho Panza

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

Laugh if it makes you feel good poly-ana but any error I made in describing the type of test you took stems directly from your pitiful inability to describe the details of your test when asked. Unless of course you deliberately mislead me in order to avoid getting an answer to your question that you didn't want to hear. Are you intellectually incapable or deliberately dishonest? You must be at least one,  possibly both. In your post from 9:39 this morning you said Quote: I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something now in your last post you say [quote]they did not say "you are a liar"

On your first post on this board you state

Quote:

But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

and then now you claim
Quote:

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat.

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


Sancho Panza[/quote]


Poly-ana
As you can see what I said is true. Now, he has, ( since he cannot confess that Poly's don't work) to relegating you to the class of "purposely misleading " and "intellectually incapable".

I am convinced that Sancho is nothing more than a troll that goes on web sites just to interact negatively with others because they haven't the cojones to stand up that way to any one in real life.

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

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

Laugh if it makes you feel good poly-ana but any error I made in describing the type of test you took stems directly from your pitiful inability to describe the details of your test when asked. Unless of course you deliberately mislead me in order to avoid getting an answer to your question that you didn't want to hear. Are you intellectually incapable or deliberately dishonest? You must be at least one,  possibly both. In your post from 9:39 this morning you said Quote: I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something now in your last post you say [quote]they did not say "you are a liar"

On your first post on this board you state

Quote:

But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

and then now you claim
Quote:

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat.

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


Sancho Panza[/quote]


Sancho:

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Evan S

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

Dr. Maschke, You statement Quote: That polygraph operators cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is supported by peer-reviewed research cited, with full abstracts, therein. May have been accurate over 10 years ago when the last research you cited was completed, but what in the world would make you think that no progress has been made since. Especially when you are well aware that research published since your book first came out convinced you that sphincter contraction was detectable to the point you began warning your readers not to try it.

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


Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

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

Dr. Maschke,

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

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

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

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

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

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

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

I almost wish I had known you when you were alive

Sancho Panza

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

Sancho Panza

Notguilty1 I would like to addess your intelligence.

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

Sancho Panza

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

That's rich Dr. Maschke  YOU of all people calling me dishonest. You promote dishonesty with every egotistical beath you take. "It is hard to say which of the two we ought most to lament,--the unhappy man who sinks under the sense of his dishonesty, or him who survives it."  You certainly fall in the latter category. I almost wish I had known you when you were alive Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

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

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

Notguilty1 I would like to addess your intelligence. Presuming it actually exists. do you have any idea where it might be currenltly located?  . Sancho Panza

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

But for to claim that you
Quote:

have never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination

is patently false.


The dishonesty in your statement;
Quote:

The countermeasures we’ve discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues

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

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

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

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

Sancho Panza

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

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

My current response to him below should give you some idea of what it is actually like trying to communicate with him on an intelligent level.  I hated standing at the top of that ladder.
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/images/ani-hello.gif

Sancho Panza

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

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

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


Quote:

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

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


Quote:

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

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


Quote:

But for to claim that you [quote] have never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination

is patently false.[/quote]

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


Quote:

The dishonesty in your statement; [quote] The countermeasures we’ve discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues

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

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

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

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

Sancho Panza[/quote]

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

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

Dr. Maschke.
Casuistry,  Really  ::)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sancho Panza

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

Meangina,  If you will go back and review notguilty1s posts you will find out that not only does he engage in frequent ad hominum attacks against me, you will find that my observations are accurate. The only reason I respond to him at all is I don't want him to feel left out. As you can see he just posted a somewhat pornographic depiction with my name on it, but Dr. Maschke has thus far declined to censure his activity. I actually asked Dr. Maschke both publicly and privately to address his attacks. He has declined and therefore I no longer have any compunction regarding responding in kind and couldn't care less about your opinion on the matter. My current response to him below should give you some idea of what it is actually like trying to communicate with him on an intelligent level.  I hated standing at the top of that ladder. http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/images/ani-hello.gif Sancho Panza

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

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

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

Peace my hollow man ;D ;D ;D ;D

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

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

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

Thank you
Sancho Panza

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

Notguilty1 I would appreciate it if you would stop spending so much time thinking about whatever is located between my legs literally or figuratively. Your lifestyle choices are, of course, a matter of you own personal preference, You are certainly entitled to live your life the way you wish, but I choose not to participate. So, if you find your private thoughts returning to my genital area again whether as the fodder for artistic commentary or as the focus of some other deviant contemplation.  Please stop. Thank you Sancho Panza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sancho Panza

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Raging Bull, 1980

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/raging_bull/_group_photos/joe_pesci1.jpg

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

Quote: I for one, ( I can't speak for Dr. Maschke ) enjoy your amusing and pompous views. "He's a pretty kid, too. I mean I don't know, I gotta problem if I should fuck him or fight him. ..." Raging Bull, 1980 http://www.sportsfactbook.com/history/Raging_Bull

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

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

Addressing Dr. Maschke, I wrote:

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

The dishonesty in your statement; Quote: The countermeasures we’ve discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues lies mainly in your failure to disclose what the examinee must really accomplish while sitting in a polygraph chair, in order to produce a singleindistinguishable response. The main problem with your advice concerning manufacturing responses to comparison questions is that an examinee who has read your book still has no idea what data collected from his reactivity to relevant questions might look like on the day he is taking the test. So in order have the remotest possibility of successfully using countermeasures he has to: 1. Read your book to the point that he believes he can accurately follow your instructions and if your techniques actually work, use them to 2. accurately mimic the physiological changes brought about by autonomic arousal and collected by several different sensor components while 3. blindly guessing how much of the technique must be applied in order to be enough to overshadow his reactivity to the relevant questions and how much would be too much in order to avoid suspicion brought about by their conspicuous appearance, 4. in comparison to data collected from a true autonomic reaction that 5. he can’t see and 6. he can’t suppress 7.and repeat the entire process on each comparison question in such a fashion that his manufactured reactions don't all look exactly alike or manufactured. 8. in the presence of a trained examiner a.thoroughly familiar with the instrumentation of the polygraph, b.considerable experience looking at collected data, and c.training in detecting exactly the type of countermeasures you endorse, 9. while the data is being recorded for further review, analysis,and quality control if needed 10. Oh yes, and he has to listen to the questions too. Does that sound as simple as you make it sound in your book? Looking for something easier to do? Try standing on top of three balanced bowling balls while juggling chain saws. While both might be possible it is unlikely a person would be successful at either just by reading a book about it

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

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of “beating” the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.   The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE) Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)  PG 147  (emphasis added)

SanchoPanza