Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

Dave

Beechtrees,

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

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

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

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

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

Polycop...

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

Kisses,

Dave

Polycop,

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

I also have some questions for you: 

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

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

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

Apologies to all for straying off-topic.

Mr. Maschke,

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

George,

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

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

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

Dave

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

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