Skeptic,  Why don't we see what George has to say?  Afterall, Darkcobra posted to him and I think everyone who reads this board should allow Mr. Maschke the opportunity to respond.    You claim to work for the government.  Then you of all people know then that Mr. Maschke was presented an opportunity to explain, refute or mitigate the allegations which resulted in his clearance being revoked by the Army.  In "Too hot of a potato"  George clearly states that the FBI reported derogatory information about him to the Army.  If this is the case, and George states that the FBI's false allegations cost him his carrer, then he should have easily sued and won, as these "false" allegations would be a matter of record with FBI, Army, and the DSS.   

Lets review.  George claims he is a talented linguist with strong skills in several languages.  He should be in high demand, but instead, he applied only to the FBI.  Why not any of the other agencies which could use such talent?

FBI declined to re-test and did not offer employment to George, no matter how useful his skills were or how many letters of appreciation he received.   

Army revoked his clearance.  George would have you believe he was without opportunity to do anything about this.  Not true.  He absolutely had an opportunity to fight the action.   

LAPD declined to use his services.   

Quite a track record.  I think the truth lies in what that derogatory and allegedly flase information was.  But I doubt we, the readers of this site, wil ever know the truth.   

I also get a kick out of the way George and others immediately point to detractors, such as Dark Cobra and scream "Polygrapher!"  It seems so reminiscent of Joe McCarthy and "Communist!"   

One thing I do agree with.  The Polygraph is not perfect.  So if any rants and ravings of George and any other on this board can get the various agencies which use it to screen applicants or interrogate criminals to invest in research and develope a reliable tool, then I say it's a great thing.

DarkCobra2005,

Thank you for your post.

Your criticism is very much similar to that which was leveled against Washington Times columnist Bill Gertz when he released Breakdown: How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11th. Government and intel types assailed Gertz through proxies, claiming that the information in his book provided help to America’s enemies in understanding our intelligence agencies, blueprints for a second attack, etc. “That type of disclosure hinders the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to do their jobs,” the logic went.

Well, if the jobs were done properly, over 3,000 people wouldn’t have lost their lives. Bill Gertz (and many other rational people) didn’t trust giving the spooks a second shot in a criticism-free secret little world, and rightfully so. Public shame provides an impetus to do things better like few other motivating factors.

The same thing goes for polygraphy. “Don’t expose things because you are giving the bad guys information” is simply not going to fly here. Intelligence, government and law enforcement types have had their way long enough, and with disastrous results for both national security and individual reputations.

As George noted, there are a tremendous number of people who need the information provided on this site to protect themselves against false accusations because they are being judged by an invalid “test.”

For example, in many places, rape victims are often forced to take polygraph “tests” before the police will pursue their cases (fortunately, this practice has been outlawed in many states). Should we keep this information from them?   
 
Or how about individuals who work for a large Midwestern LE agency that reportedly conducts polygraph dragnets of MOS over scratches and other minor damage to patrol cars? Should I sleep well at night knowing that we withheld this information because criminals could make use of it as well?

Regrettably, there is no way to get countermeasure info to those who need it while preventing the bad guys from getting to it.

The only workable solution to the polygraph fraud is the abolition of polygraphy. When it comes to such frauds, sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. 

Quote:


This argument would have helpful to you if debating polygraph matters twenty years ago. Against George and I, it floats like a lead balloon.   

In the mid 1980s, the polygraph debate pitted liberal champions of criminals’ rights and the right to lie against arch law and order conservatives and big business. While there was some discussion of accuracy when the EPPA was crafted, the primary issue was civil rights vs. employers’ rights.

The 21st century polygraph debate is far different. It simply pits those who realize that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud against those who do not. George, myself and those who support us are not soft on crime. Putting things in terms of helping people go free from criminal accusations is not going to appease us. Setting people free from prisons on the basis of an unreliable “test” that is easily defeated is the last thing that should be going on in our criminal justice system. 

I can think of no more glaring abuse of polygraphy than it’s increasingly widespread use on convicted sex offenders. What bothers me most about this travesty of justice is not that these individuals are the lowest of the low in society, and that polygraphers can abuse them with impunity because the offenders have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. It is the fact that the results of a “test” completely unsupported by science (there is virtually universal agreement that polygraphy is invalid for screening purposes) are being relied on in determining whether or not these individuals are re-offending, often at the expensive of traditional investigative techniques.

Still, as long as polygraphs are being used against rape victims, law enforcement officers and others with good names, the answer is not to withhold information and let “the experts” handle things. 

The answer is to shout that the polygraph emperor is naked and to keep shouting it from the rooftops until people listen and the “evil art” is abolished.

Quote:


I don't understand what you meant by, "Mr. Menges as a polygraph advocate, you as a polygraph foe.  Potato vs Pototo…" If you'd care to explain, perhaps I could comment.

You had also asked, "Did not Joe Pot Head do exactly what Menges referred to as a 'countermeasure' that he learned on this site.. so are they not the same?" Although frostibud108's self-reported actions are consistent with both Mr. Menges' and AntiPolygraph.org's definitions of "countermeasures," that does not make our definitions the same. Mr. Menges' definition is restricted in scope to guilty persons, while AntiPolygraph.org's is not. This is not a trivial point.

You seem to have focused exclusively on my preliminary discussion of terminology rather than my arguments concerning the ethical considerations associated with providing countermeasure information to the public that are the core of my response to Mr. Menges.

You are mistaken if you suppose that we were unaware of or unconcerned about the possibilty that information provided by AntiPolygraph.org could be used by deceptive persons to pass their polygraph "tests" before we went on-line some five years ago. But we believe the greater public interest is better served by the truth about polygraphs (including countermeasures) being publicly told.

I suppose expecting a little intelligence from you is too much to ask. I apologize for the mistake. It won't happen again.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 3:35am:


Bullshit.  Most the time they simply make wild accusations.  I'll bet half the victims accused of using CM's don't even know what they are.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 27^th, 2005 at 3:35am:


This (and the other post on the previous page you made a few days ago) is probably the stupidest line of logic I've seen.

So the guy works overseas... So what.  DarkCobra - you really should get out more.  What about the Netherlands differences from the US makes you suspicious?  The different food?  Time Zone?  Language?  Lattitude?  Climate?  Altitude?  Tolerance and respect for diversity?  Or their record for supporting human rights?

The fact that an American Citizen has a job overseas makes you suspicious?  Grow up.

I believe as countermeasures become more widely known, more polygraphers will "fish" for people to admit to their use of them (whether they are employing them or not).

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 2:56am:


Well then I guess we've never met.  The Polygrapher I had accused me of using CM's.  I'd never heard of them until afterwards when I looked them up.  I guess the contempt I had for you was misplaced.  I generalized and lumped you in with all <insert deragotory adjective here> polygraphers.  You are likley in the minority and for that I apoligize.

darkcobra2005 wrote on May 28^th, 2005 at 2:56am:


Anybody that cops to using CM's after visiting this site is either a complete idiot or simply brain dead.  I'd use them, probably not get caught and certainly never admit to using them.  Polygraph is a game.  It works to the polygraphers advantage like a hunter to sneak in at night, lie in wait and then beam the deer with headlights before ambushig it.  They don't like deer that are sneaky too (as in test subjects with knowledge).

I still think your suspicion of George simply because he is a US expatriot living in the Netherlands is highly prejudicial and based on ignorance (but not surprising based on your profession -- be suspicious of everybody and draw conclusions).  On that we will continue to disagree.

If you did a polygraph on an American that had lived in the Netherlands, and that was about all you knew from the hour interview, would you build control questions asking them if they'd ever smoked pot?  (assuming that all Americans in Holland are druggies, and would deny it?)