Quote:


Mr. Truth, I am troubled by the above portion of your response to SAIDME.  Are you saying that the fact that you are required to register as sex offender posses no deterrent to you offending again, or do you just find it embarrassing to have to register?

I attend a university with a Criminal Justice program--thus various federal and state agencies are often recruiting on campus.  I'll make sure these are up as soon as possible.

My current intentions in terms of career center around analytical positions at one of the intelligence agencies--so this site has really been invaluable.   

Thanks

I've printed out two of the posters and put them in my police department.  They've generated lots of questions from cops who had never heard of anyone having doubts about the polygraph.

Sergeant1107,

I'm glad to hear of your efforts and the results obtained to date with your poster distribution.  That is exactly the sort of thing that is needed.  Law enforcement officers are not stupid.  Those NOT involved with the process (i.e., those other than polygraphers and the management who were involved in supporting polygraphy/the status quo as they rose through the ranks) will see "lie detection" polygraphy (particularly polygraph screening) for what it actually is (foolishness) when presented with all the facts.  Are there national organizations such as the IACP (for executives/managers) for the working levels (the next managers/executives) that you feel this could/should be shared with?  These are the people who need to be broadly reached with the message you are sharing in a narrow fashion via the posters.  Regards....

An anonymous contributor has kindly provided a Spanish translation of Poster #4, which explains how to beat a polygraph "test." Click on the image to download it:

find it interesting that the photo that you posted on 12/13/2002 is exactlyy the same photo you posted on 2/27/2007 referencing a "RECENT" trip to UCLA. 

The trees are the same height, The foliage is the same, hmm even the little tear-off pieces are in exactly the same position. 

This is either an astonishing coincidence or possibly an example of The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. 

Sancho Panza

Actually DREW the issue his his re-use of the same picture which was the ONLY picture used in his 2002 post and then posting it again leading people to believe that it was from a 2006 visit. Irrespective of whether or not he went to the campus in 2006. Saying that this picture was from a "RECENT visit is not true regardless of whether or not he actually went to the campus in 2006.  I didn't say his entire post was a lie, just the picture. You are a former FBI agent aren't you? If one of your agents turned in the same surveillance photo twice and claimed they were taken years apart, what would you say? How would you react?  

He padded his post with a blatant falsehood. YOUR defense of his false behavior is just another example of  The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. Here is a man who blatantly mislead his readership and up pops Drew Richardson in defense of his falshood.  What's more important THE TRUTH or making sure Mr. Mashke doesn't suffer any embarrassment for his behavior?  Or is this another example of what might be refferred to as a JUSTIFIABLE LIE. 

It doesn't really matter what you think of what he did. It is a plain simple fact that he represented the same picture as representing 2 visits over 3 years apart YES or NO?

Sancho Panza