I was kind of hoping for a response because I really don't understand why you wouldn't pursue legal action.

Would you not want to sue for damages?  If not, why not?  Have you talked w/ a lawyer and been discouraged for some legal or financial reason?  Wouldn't this be another way to attack use and acceptance of poly's (one of your stated goals)?

Please expound....

George and whomever else.  I took my first poly while in high school well prior to the Poly-employment act.  I had no problems and got the job.  Soon after, I joined the military and had no cause to take a poly, so it wasn't an issue.  I completed my service and sought a job in national security.  I was offered a poly by a federal agency.  I checked this site out prior to the poly.  I thought then that it was a site full of grumblings by people who for whatever reason couldn't pass a poly and vented here.  I admitted to my polygrapher that I went to this site and Williams’s site.  He cautioned me simply not to do anything but answer the questions.   I was tested, passed (wish all my days were that easy) by following the directions and answering truthfully.  I have been fascinated ever since with polygraph and this site in particular.  Mr. Maschke, I complement you on your vast knowledge.  You are not stupid.  But I also note that this site is something of a temple to your ego.  Polygraphs are used in various fashions and ways, by many agencies for national security screening.  While not perfect, they are useful serve a purpose.  Thanks to this site, which you claim to have built to stop fraud and pseudoscience, the entire world, terrorists and enemies of America, now have techniques (questionable if they are effective) to use in an attempt subvert a system of national security.  I find it haunting to think that if one terrorist is caught and states he got so far thanks to "The lie behind the lie detector", you and some of the posters on this board will cheer as the terrorist was successful at exposing the "Junk science".  If my son or daughter was assaulted by a sex offender who used your techniques, you would do well to hide, as I would sue you.  I think it is clear to most who read this board that you have an issue and that steps could have been taken within the government to correct them, had you used the system.  It is clear to me that you lost your clearance and position with the LA police because you are someone who is more aptly a loose cannon than a hot potato.   

I have never used countermeasures and never had trouble with any polygraph I was administered.  None of my experiences were anything close to many of the posts on this board.  I have found my polygraphers to be professional and have yet to meet a colleague who can say any differently.   

You lost your shot at the FBI.  Where I am initially sorry, I have little wonder why, as through this site, you may not have been positively evaluated as fit.   

So I close with a few questions:   

1.  How many polygraphs have you taken?  With what agencies?

2.  What countermeasures have you applied?   

3.  Since you seem to spend a great deal of time on this site, how are you employed?  I recall seeing somewhere you worked for the Iranian intersection, which I find very interesting, considering the nature of this site and the Iranian government's relation with the U.S. 

4.  You stated that you "as a cadet" value the creed to not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.  Were you ever a Military cadet?  If so, when, where?  And could this self professed honesty be the real reason you didn't get hired by the FBI and are considered "too hot a potato"?  Did you honestly admit anything which caused the government not to want you in access to classified?

Good luck on this personal mission of yours.  But from your postings, I'm glad I don’t share an office with you.   

xmilitary,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your comments. I had limited Internet access over the past three weeks. Responses to your remarks follow.

xmilitary wrote on Feb 4^th, 2005 at 1:52am:


Do you still hold that point of view?

Quote:


Congratulations on passing your polygraph. I am glad to know that the "complete honesty" approach (suggested in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) worked for you, and that you were not subjected to retaliation for your candor. Others have not always been so fortunate.

Quote:


Why this fascination? Your use of the word "polygraph" as an abstract noun synonymous with "polygraphy" suggests that perhaps you were fascinated enough to become a polygrapher yourself, as the word is rarely used by anyone outside the polygraph community in this sense.

Quote:


Why is that? What would you suggest I do differently?

Quote:


But polygraph screening has no scientific basis and is without validity. The reliance of these agencies on polygraphy is misplaced.

Quote:


While America's adversaries have been fooling the polygraph since well before this website went on-line (2000),  it is true that AntiPolygraph.org has made information about polygraph procedure and countermeasures more readily available than ever before. We provide this information to afford innocent persons a means of protecting themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, not to help liars beat the system. Unfortunately, there is no way to provide this information to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to all.

I suspect that you would likely agree with the views expressed by DoDPI instructor Paul M. Menges in his article, "Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public" (Polygraph, Vol. 31 [2002], No. 4, pp. 254-262). See my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public" for a rebuttal.

Quote:


On the contrary, I think it would be deeply regrettable if it were to take such an incident to compel our government to confront the truth that polygraphy is junk science.

Quote:


On what legal theory would you base your suit?

Quote:


What is the "issue" that you believe it is "clear to most" that I have? And what are the steps that you believe "could have been taken within the government to correct them [sic]?"

Quote:


Why is that?

Quote:


Congratulations. Many others have not been so fortunate.

Quote:


I passed all other employment-related tests that I took prior to my FBI polygraph. My FBI HQ file indicates that my application was terminated based solely on my polygraph results, without any further investigation.

Quote:


Please re-read my statement.

Quote:


None.

Quote:


My current employment is no business of yours. While I have never heard of "the Iranian intersection" (perhaps you meant the Iranian Interests Section?), I can confirm that I am not now, nor have I ever been, an agent of Iran (or, for that matter, any other foreign government), as you have insinuated.

Quote:


As I mentioned in my statement, I received a 2-year Army ROTC scholarship in 1987 and was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in 1989. The university I attended was UCLA.

Quote:


I have received no indication that such is the case. My FBI polygraph report, as well as the rejection letter I received from the Bureau, indicates that my application was terminated because of the polygraph results, and not on any admission made.

Quote:


Somehow, I doubt the sincerity of your good luck wishes. From your post, I suppose I should also be glad not to share an office with you.

George, 
  After reading your very sad story about being disqualified as a potential candidate for the FBI due to polygraph results, I am somewhat stunned as to how and why this could have happened to what appears to be a very promising candidate for the position. 

  It seems unfortunate that someone such as yourself, especially with your military background in counterintelligence and investigative techniques could be disqualified in this manner, and without merit. This whole unfortunate episode has left me with feelings of anger, frustration, confusion and above all, contempt. 

  If a potential applicant such as yourself applied for a prestigious law enforcement agency like the FBI and were turned down based solely on the results of the polygraph, one would think you might have a better chance at applying for the Central Intelligence Agency. After all, the CIA continuosly recruits and trains many applicants who possess the knowledge to be able to communicate in a foreign language, especially Arabic and Farsi. 

  Your military career history is something to be truly admired. That alone should have had recruiters from any top law enforcement agency sit up and take notice the moment you filled out any application. 

  This is a very informative site and has already confirmed for me what I always suspected, that the polygraph, along with the investigative procedures before and after the polygraph is administered, is nothing but voodoo garbage. 

  As for the negative posts which accompany this thread, (I won't mention names) I can only say, leave the childish name-calling to some other teenage chat site or something. 

  Mike_C. 

False and misleading?  well George, let's start with the crap you spread about the FBI being referred to as "OGA".  The FBI is ALWAYS referred to as the FBI.  OGA on the other hand......well now.  Can we assume that yet another Government agency in addition to ALL the others rejected you as well?   

Oh, by the way, in another post you state you no longer wished to work for the FBI.  Be honest George.  You never had the decision to make. They made it and didn't want you.   

Quote:


Mr. Maschke,

The talk in polygraph circles is that you also failed a polygraph examination conducted by CIA (and possibly one by the LAPD).  Is this information incorrect?

Respectfully,

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Aug 12^th, 2005 at 12:33am:


Nonombre,

I did not mention it in my public statement, nor have I publicly mentioned it elsewhere before now, but in the early 1990s I twice applied for a graduate student internship with the CIA. Both times, I passed initial written tests and was interviewed at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. As part of the process, I submitted to a polygraph screening examination each time. Each time, I sat for only one polygraph session, and each time was told the result was inconclusive. I was not accused of deception or subjected to a post-test interrogation in either case. Both times, I was asked if I'd be willing to come back for a follow-up examination, and both times I agreed.

In both cases, I was not offered the internship following interviews with managers in the Directorate of Intelligence. I recall that one supervisor, apparently not very impressed with my decision to major in Near Eastern languages, suggested that intelligence analysts don't really need to be fluent in the languages of the countries they report on, remarking "We have people to translate things for us." I was bewildered by that remark. I was also introduced to the person in charge of producing biographical reports on prominent political, military, and economic figures of a particular Near Eastern country. He was unable to read a newspaper in that country's language. I hope attitudes have changed regarding the importance of language skills at Langley.

In any event, as I mentioned, the CIA's polygraphers did not accuse me of deception and were actually quite courteous. I was left with the impression that I was not offered the internships based on my interviews, not the polygraph. Indeed, had I "failed" the polygraph during my first internship application, I doubt I would have been interviewed for an internship a second time.

It's possible that in the post-Ames polygraph crackdown at CIA, my charts were re-evaluated and scored as "Deception Indicated." But no such indication was made to me.

On a side note, during one of my trips to Langley, while speaking with other applicants at a motel in Tyson's Corner where we were staying, I was surprised to hear from one applicant for employment, not an internship, how she had been harshly grilled about her sex life and accused of lying. She found it all the more outrageous because she was a rape victim, and had been interrogated about that, too. I could hardly believe it, because my experience had been so different. I was not asked any sex-related questions on either occasion.

As for failing an LAPD polygraph, yes, LAPD polygrapher Ervin Youngblood, who had the foreknowledge that I had previously failed my pre-employment polygraph with the FBI, accused me of using countermeasures. It didn't matter that at the time, I did not even know what countermeasures are. I have discussed all this in greater detail in my public statement.

In any event, it is crystal clear that in the memo by the acting chief of the Defense Security Service's polygraph section that he was referring to my FBI pre-employment polygraph. My Army records, released to me under the Privacy Act, include no communications from either the CIA or the LAPD.

If "the talk in polygraph circles" is that I failed a CIA polygraph, then, as Jeffery indicated, it appears that someone has violated the Privacy Act.