AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - A word or two from the "other side"

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Policy › A word or two from the "other side"

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Add Poll

Send Topic

A word or two from the "other side" (Read 51266 times)

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #45 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 5:05pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Beech Trees, Public Servant, It should be borne in mind that the common law concept of "presumption of innocence" merely means that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and nothing more. (See my short essay on this topic titled, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty?")

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

beech trees God Member Offline Posts: 593 Joined: Jun 22^nd, 2001 Gender:	Re: A word or two from the Reply #46 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 5:33pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Public Servant wrote on Jul 26^th, 2002 at 4:41pm: Wow, as usual a post with rather hostile overtones. However, you are correct, each person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if you really understand my posts, you would see that I firmly believe that the court, not the exam, is the deciding factor in guilt. Your posts don't seem to corroborate that, but fine, point taken. Quote: You might have been a "victim" of an incorrect polygraph result, but you have obviously never been a victim of crime. I don't know anyone in the US who has not been a victim of crime. I'm not sure why you would infer that whether or not I have been a victim of crime should influence my opinion that polygraphy is a pseudo-scientific fraud, or that it has some bearing on the validity of that assertion, but fine. In point of fact in my life I have been burglarized, and have had three violent crimes attempted-- two strong arm robbery attempts (one in Washington, DC the other in Chicago) and one attempted home invasion. Quote: You would like to empower felons with knowledge to help them get away with their crimes -- not just on the subject of polygraph, but all attempts to obtain the truth?! Every suspect interview I've done, the person has been advised of his rights. And in a poly, he gets a second advisement on his right to refuse. And you want to put up more blocks to law enforcement?! No, I want to abolish the use of polygraphy as it is currently practiced, based on the lack of scientific validity and certain Constitutional issues. A 'felon' who has already commited the criminal act has already 'gotten away with it'. Quote: I know this will raise your BP, and it's off topic, but... why is your flag yellow? I have seen various renditions of this flag, but I do not recall it in yellow. It's almost offensive to my patriotic soul. Does the color mean anything or are the colors limited. I really want to know, I'm not just pulling your chain. A complete discussion of the symbology of the rattlesnake in pre-Revolutionary times, as well as its use in various flags, banners, and battle-standards would be somewhat lengthy and probably not of interest to most readers here. Suffice to say that the rattlesnake appears several times in flags and standards prior to its first noted appearance on a yellow field, this in 1775 on the drums of Marines mustered to accompany the Continental Navy in its mission to seize British cargo ships laden with arms that were destined for the the British troops under General Howe. A member of the Sons of Liberty, Christopher Gadsden, also was a part of the Marine committee who originally mustered the previously-mentioned Marine force. Gadsden and the Continental Congress chose Esek Hopkins as the commander-in-chief of the Navy. The flag that Hopkins used as his personal standard on the Alfred is the one seen accompanying my posts-- it's commonly referred to as the Gadsden Flag or the Hopkins Flag. It's generally accepted that Hopkins' flag was presented to him by Christopher Gadsden, who felt it was especially important for the commodore to have a distinctive personal standard. Gadsden also presented a copy of this flag to his state legislature in Charleston. This is recorded in the South Carolina congressional journals, from which I quote: Col. Gadsden presented to the Congress an elegant standard, such as is to be used by the commander in chief of the American navy; being a yellow field, with a lively representation of a rattle-snake in the middle, in the attitude of going to strike, and these words underneath, "Don't Tread on Me!" I cannot speculate why the Colonel chose yellow, except that he was hearkening back to the Continental Marines' drums.

	"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
	IP Logged

beech trees God Member Offline Posts: 593 Joined: Jun 22^nd, 2001 Gender:	Re: A word or two from the Reply #47 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 5:47pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Nice essay George. Yes, I agree with all you wrote there, which is why I point out 'as a matter of law'. In other words, the state has not yet proven its charge or suspicions, thus under the color of law the person is innocent of the charges, not necessarily the bad act. For public servant, rather than non-sequitur questions on American history, could you be compelled to answer my question: Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career?
	« Last Edit: Jul 26^th, 2002 at 7:12pm by beech trees »
	"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
	IP Logged

Mark Mallah Very Senior User Offline Posts: 131 Joined: Mar 16^th, 2001 Gender:	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #48 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 8:08pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	In a stirring Patrick Henryesque post, Drew has issued challenge number 2: Specific issue polygrapher, remove this cancer (polygraph screenings) from your midst. Drew, thanks for that impassioned post, which resonated with me tremendously. I think every victim of polygraphy thanks you.


	WWW IP Logged

Mark Mallah Very Senior User Offline Posts: 131 Joined: Mar 16^th, 2001 Gender:	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #49 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 8:38pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: And guarenteed, a felon is going to respond to the relevant questions! Let's say you are correct. How do you know that an innocent person, fearing the consequences of being disbelieved, or recognizing this as the most important question, will not also respond? I just noticed that George asked this of you too. I should have known better than to think George might have missed something. Quote: Bravo. At last, I do see the criminal investigator shining through Polygraph screenings should be a criminal investigator's nightmare. The harm done has been tremendous. The polygraph can't be singularly faulted for the espionage of an Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, or a Larry Wu Tai Chin, but it has enabled them to get away with it. Having "passed", they carried on their merry way. In my own case, the FBI was bogged down in a 2 year, intense investigation of me. On a personal level, it was very upsetting, stressful, invasive, embarrassing, humiliating, disruptive, unjust, frustrating, et al. But the cost was greater than just my own personal suffering. The FBI was diverted for two years chasing the wrong person. By wasting their time and being diverted for 2 years, the direct beneficiaries were the real criminals (such as Robert Hanssen).
	« Last Edit: Jul 27^th, 2002 at 12:10am by Mark Mallah »

	WWW IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #50 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 8:42pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Mark, I am in complete agreement with you. Drew's last post is eloquently stated and quite to the point. I'm grateful for the public stance he has courageously taken on the issue of polygraph screening, not just here, but in numerous public fora during the many years that he has had the courage to speak out honestly about the problems of polygraph screening.
	« Last Edit: Jul 27^th, 2002 at 2:00pm by George W. Maschke »
	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

polycop Guest	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #51 - Jul 26^th, 2002 at 11:06pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Public Servant, you said Public Servant wrote on Jul 26^th, 2002 at 3:41pm: George, I believe that had I (or poly cop, I would venture), been your first examiner you would have been NDI, if you really were not withholding relevant information. Interesting observation. You know George posted his "story" on one of the other anti-polygraph sites (He posted as "Capt. Jones"). I have read that story over a couple of times and have come to the opinion that there may have been real problems in the way his first exam was administered, the choice of comparison questions used, and most importantly the obvious and absolute lack of rapport between the examiner and the examinee from the minute the examinee (George) walked in the room. Public Servant, we both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner. From what I read, George decided in about the first 3 seconds that he had no trust in anything that particular examiner had to say (not George's fault, apparantly the examiner said some things right off that George knew not to be true and that understandably spooked him). Bottom line, how does a examiner set comparisons (designed to get the truthful through the test) if the examinee does not believe a thing the examiner says? You should really read the "Capt Jones" letter. In one way, George was probably his own worst enemy in that room, but in another way, the examiner who tested him may have made some real mistakes. Bottom line: We may have created this monster.... Polycop


	IP Logged

Drew Richardson Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 427 Joined: Sep 7^th, 2001	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #52 - Jul 27^th, 2002 at 1:19am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Polycop, You are quite correct! I have said openly that the "antipolygraph man of the year" for the last couple of years running is the guy who wrongly found George Maschke to be deceptive during his applicant exam. I know who that individual is, a well known now-retired FBI agent and former Bureau polygraph examiner, but for privacy sake, will not reveal his name on this board. Should he care to defend his examination though, I'm sure we would all be glad to hear his commentary...


	IP Logged

Mark Mallah Very Senior User Offline Posts: 131 Joined: Mar 16^th, 2001 Gender:	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #53 - Jul 27^th, 2002 at 1:29am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: In one way, George was probably his own worst enemy in that room Doesn't it seem problematic that in a test designed to distinguish the truthful from the deceptive, a truthful person could be his own worst enemy and inadvertently contribute to the test branding him a liar? Quote: we both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner. How can you know if the examinee truly trusts the process and the examiner? I bet many examinees do not communicate their mistrust or skepticism because they do not want to alienate the examiner and hurt their chances. I communicated my reservations about the polygraph to a few different examiners (before I knew anything about it other than that I was falsely accused by it previously). Admittedly, I communicated my reservations conservatively because I did not want to alienate the examiners. The examination went on, and I was falsely accused. To my knowledge, nobody reconsidered the DI result based on my reservations about the process. To stand behind what you say here, you would have to acknowledge that where an examinee truly does not trust the process, and that information becomes known to the examiner, the results are of no value, no? Quote: We may have created this monster.... George, I think you should take this as a compliment.


	WWW IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #54 - Jul 27^th, 2002 at 2:26pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Public Servant has written regarding polygraph subjects: Quote: Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically... And Polycop has written: Quote: ...we both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner... These attributes ascribed to CQT polygraphy by two of its practitioners are also common to the cold reading technique practiced by psychics, palm readers, and other assorted charlatans.

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Polycop Guest	Re: A word or two from the Reply #55 - Jul 28^th, 2002 at 3:14am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: These attributes ascribed to CQT polygraphy by two of its practitioners are also common to the cold reading technique practiced by psychics, palm readers, and other assorted charlatans. Oh c'mon George, I don't know about that. I would instead equate the necessity of some amount of faith in the polygraph process as more closely kin to the faith that somebody must have in their counselor in order for their counseling to be of some help to them. Like polygraph examiners, a counselor's success is based in some degree on their patient. Like polygraph examiners, counselors are involved in an imperfect (and quote soft) science, and like polygraph examiners, counselors do make mistakes. Like counselors, we polygraph examiners try to learn from our mistakes and do a better job next time. That is what being a professional is all about... Polycop....


	IP Logged

polycop Guest	Re: A word or two from the Reply #56 - Jul 28^th, 2002 at 3:27am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Doesn't it seem problematic that in a test designed to distinguish the truthful from the deceptive, a truthful person could be his own worst enemy and inadvertently contribute to the test branding him a liar? To stand behind what you say here, you would have to acknowledge that where an examinee truly does not trust the process, and that information becomes known to the examiner, the results are of no value, no? Mark, You make some good points here. I would suggest though that as a result of all the Vilification of polygraph examiners on this site, otherwise truthful subjects are walking into polygraph labs (Beechtrees HATES that term.. ready to "do battle" instead of allowing the examiner to build some trust, prepare the subject for the exam, listening to directions, cooperating, and otherwise getting through the testing process. Polygraph examiners want good applicants and we do everything necessary to make sure the right people are hired. You know, I am regularly thanked by applicants who were surprised at how painless the testing process actually was. It is not always the nightmare that many of the residents of this site endured (rightly or wrongly)... Polycop


	IP Logged

Drew Richardson Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 427 Joined: Sep 7^th, 2001	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #57 - Jul 28^th, 2002 at 5:36am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Polycop, In your last reply to Mark Mallah you write: Quote: ...You know, I am regularly thanked by applicants who were surprised at how painless the testing process actually was.... I would suggest that if you conducted no exam at all and passed/cleared all your examinees that: (1) you would likely be thanked by more people, and (2) you would have adopted a procedure which has no less diagnostic value than the one you are currently using (assuming you are screening applicants with either a CQT or RI test). For all practical purposes, as opposed to the daily nightmare that exists for applicants, I believe my suggested scenario is what basically happens with the federal government's counterintelligence screening of on-board employees and contractors. Because of the high probability of false positives and grave and immediate consequences to polygraph examiners who would routinely and wrongly condemn their coworkers, I believe otherwise deceptive exam results are largely overlooked with employee-examinees. Mr. Mallah, although the exception, was one of the few whose results were not overlooked. Please note this important distinction: I can easily believe that the examiners involved in Mr. Mallah's examination(s) and the accompanying “quality control” review correctly (according to industry standards) scored his polygraph exam charts. The problem lies not in the scoring but in the fact that this application is so completely lacking in validity that his exam results had no bearing on truth and reality. The only difference between Mr. Mallah’s (and similar cases) versus the great number of ignored employee-examinee results is that his examiners likely threw the standard caution to the wind because their agency was looking for a spy at the time. Unfortunately, those examiners involved with Mr. Mallah's examination likely overlooked the fact that a change in the exigency of the circumstances is NOT, and I repeat is NOT, accompanied by a change in the validity of the diagnosis. Regards, Drew Richardson p.s. I believe I owe you an answer regarding the use of CQT exams in connection with specific-incident investigations and with regard to my thoughts regarding concealed information tests. Because these are both areas involving many important sub-issues, I have yet to decide how to answer the question both meaningfully and within a post of reasonable length. Please excuse my delay while I consider how best to approach the matter...
	« Last Edit: Jul 28^th, 2002 at 1:31pm by Drew Richardson »

	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: A word or two from the "other side" Reply #58 - Jul 28^th, 2002 at 9:33am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Polycop, You wrote: Quote: Oh c'mon George, I don't know about that. I would instead equate the necessity of some amount of faith in the polygraph process as more closely kin to the faith that somebody must have in their counselor in order for their counseling to be of some help to them. Like polygraph examiners, a counselor's success is based in some degree on their patient. Like polygraph examiners, counselors are involved in an imperfect (and quote soft) science, and like polygraph examiners, counselors do make mistakes. Like counselors, we polygraph examiners try to learn from our mistakes and do a better job next time. That is what being a professional is all about... I think your analogy of polygraphy to counseling (you didn't specify what kind) is a poor one: polygraphy lays claim to being a science-based diagnostic test; counseling does not. And although you and other polygraphers may earnestly attempt to learn from your mistakes, no amount of such endeavor can compensate for CQT (or R/I) polygraphy's complete lack of any genuine diagnostic value whatsoever. How can you know whether a subject has the requisite faith in the polygraph process? The inescapable truth is, you can't. This is just one of many uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables that may affect the outcome of a polygraph chart reading. You say that polygraphy is "an imperfect (and quote soft) science." But the truth is that it is not a science at all, for the reasons explained at greater length in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Addressing Mark you wrote: Quote: You make some good points here. I would suggest though that as a result of all the Vilification of polygraph examiners on this site, otherwise truthful subjects are walking into polygraph labs (Beechtrees HATES that term.. ready to "do battle" instead of allowing the examiner to build some trust, prepare the subject for the exam, listening to directions, cooperating, and otherwise getting through the testing process. Polygraph examiners want good applicants and we do everything necessary to make sure the right people are hired. Perhaps it is not any "Vilification" (with a capital "V") of polygraphers that leads truthful examinees to trust neither their polygrapher nor the process, but the fact (increasingly understood by those subjected to polygraph screening) that CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested." I think the argument is well-taken that all polygraph screening examinations are administered in bad faith, as they involve the polygrapher knowingly misrepresenting the procedure to the subject. This being the case, how can the subject who knows how the "test" actually "works" have any faith in either the polygrapher or the polygraph process?

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Public Servant Very Senior User Offline Posts: 134 Joined: Jul 14^th, 2002	Re: A word or two from the Reply #59 - Jul 28^th, 2002 at 2:18pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Beech Trees, Your choice of icon for your posts was obviously well researched and I assume has some personal meaning to you (either by association with the person, state, or organization). I consider myself somewhat of a history buff, and while I have seen many versions of the "Don't tread on me" banner, I had never seen this color scheme. I was expecting another scathing response but you disappointed me. The point I was going to make is; you deliver your message much better when you leave the emotion out. Quote: Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career? Quote: First of all, as I have said repeatedly, it would obviously be counterproductive for me to inform anyone how I recognize countermeasures (see numerous previous posts on this thread). And you want me to name persons?! Ye who claims he is championing the rights of the downtrodden polygraph examinee, wants me to violate their confidentiality. Violating the confidentiality of an investigation and the privacy of the examinee would be the only threat to my career here. See my earlier post (perhaps the one that started this thread) to see if I believe my career rises and falls with polygraph. I am a law enforcement officer -- a damned good one I might add-- and could continue to be such with or without my present duties. Oh, and Power?! Ha! He thinks I seek power. I'd say my pseudonym here should surely show that no one in my position has power. Next you'll be suggesting I am wealthy! I will borrow from a post by my colleague on another thread...that is funny, Beech Trees.


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

A word or two from the "other side"

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.