In re, George Masche:   

I was and still am very angry with and disappointed in George.   After he failed his polygraph test, he emailed me numerous times telling me his sad story.  I told him the thing to do was to get my manual and get prepared for the test – that is the only way to pass.  I even gave him a copy of my manual and sent him a tape of CBS 60 Minutes and many other television interviews I had done.  And here is the thanks I got - George promptly stole the technique in my manual, started his own website trumpeting his book TLBTLD, and telling people he could teach them how to pass their polygraph test.  Yes George, I said “stole”, that is defined as; 
1.      to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 
2.      to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
In my opinion, that is exactly what you did!

His only experience with the polygraph prior to that was that he had failed his test with the FBI.  And his “research” on “countermeasures” was simply paraphrasing the copy of the manual I sent him, changing it just enough to avoid outright plagiarism.  I told him at the time that as far as I was concerned what he did was tantamount to a theft of my intellectual property – and I considered it betrayal of trust.  He tried to excuse what he did by saying that he cited my name in his book as a “source” for his chapter on countermeasures.   But I noticed that in the later editions he has even stopped doing that!  Perhaps he has convinced himself that it was really his idea all along?

George has been hostile towards me since I confronted him about his theft.  I believe that is the reason he hates me.  It reminds me of the old Chinese proverb that says something to the effect, “Why do you hate me, I’ve never helped you?”  Or, as one of our sayings goes, “No good deed ever goes unpunished.”  He continues to attack me on his website and make unfounded accusations against me at every opportunity – perhaps this hatred is the result of a guilty conscience.   

I am not as upset with him now as I was when he first stole from me because he now has plenty of company – in fact there are so many it is getting ridiculous.  The band of frauds and thieves has grown to over a half a dozen.  Many others have paraphrased and plagiarized my manual and passed it off as their own – some even stealing from the ones who have stolen from me.  As I said, it really is getting ridiculous.  George just happened to be the first – I was really angry because I was trying to help him and he violated my trust.  Such is life – maybe George doesn’t think he did anything wrong, perhaps working for the Iranians all these years has skewed his moral compass and he no longer knows right from wrong.  But I know him for what he is, and I know he is a thief, a fraud, and a liar.   

Mr. Williams,

In your response above, you avoided answering the four points of my challenge, which I again put to you:

1) Please have the courage (and decency) to at least state my name when impugning my integrity on your website;

2) Please state precisely what in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector you honestly believe to be "very confusing and very dangerous." And please note also that the current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is the 4th (not the 3rd, as you incorrectly indicate);

3) Since you specifically accuse me of "fraudulently [holding myself] out as an authority on the polygraph," please point out specifically where I have misrepresented my knowledge, background, or credentials.

4) If you honestly believe I have "stolen" from you, sue me (and be prepared to be countersued).

But you do more fully air your grievances against me, and I'll address them here.

Quote:


I did indeed contact you, but it was long after my polygraph experience with the FBI and LAPD, about which I had by then published a public statement on the (no longer operational) website, NoPolygraph.com. By that time, I had no intention of submitting to another polygraph examination.

Quote:


You may sincerely believe that knowledge of polygraph countermeasures is your exclusive intellectual property or trade secret, but it isn't. When one publishes, one's work may be cited -- with proper attribution, of course -- by others, as we duly did with regard to "How to Sting the Polygraph" in the first three editions of TLBTLD.

Note that you are not the first person to describe the use of the anal sphincter contraction as a polygraph countermeasure. It was mentioned in the polygraph literature at least as early as 1977. See, Reid and Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique (Williams & Wilkins, 1977), p. 207. I don't know whether the sphincter contraction is mentioned in the 1st edition of that book (1966), but in any event, it predates your "How to Sting the Polygraph" (1st edition, 1979) by at least two years. And as pointed out by Lykken (in note 5 to Chapter 19 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood), Reid and Inbau also provide information on scoreable breathing reactions, which we relied on in the 1st edition of TLBTLD.

Quote:


I think any fair-minded, dispassionate reader of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector will see that it was never "simply a paraphrasing" of "How to Sting the Polygraph," as you contend. Other sources consulted, relied upon, and duly cited in the countermeasures chapter of the 1st edition of TLBTLD include:

• Clifton, Charles. Deception Detection: Winning the Polygraph Game. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 1991.
• Honts, Charles R., Robert L. Hodes, and David C. Raskin. "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 (1985), No. 1, pp. 177-87.
• Honts, Charles R., David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher. "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 (1994), No. 2, pp. 252-59.
• London, Peter S. and Donald J. Krapohl. "A Case Study in PDD Countermeasures," Polygraph, Vol. 28 (1999), No. 2, pp. 143-48.
• Lykken, David T. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. 2nd edition. New York: Plenum Trade, 1998.
• Reid, John E. and Fred E. Inbau. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1966.

And our chapter on polygraph procedure, understanding of which is crucial to the application of polygraph countermeasures, was based primarily on U.S. Government documents, and not at all on "How to Sting the Polygraph" (which, in my opinion, does a relatively poor job of explaining polygraph procedure).

As for why "How to Sting the Polygraph" has not been cited (except in passing, at p. 161) in the 4th edition of TLBTLD, it is because, with the dropping of the anal sphincter contraction as a suggested countermeasure, we no longer relied upon your manual as a source. If you sincerely believe that there is a passage in TLBTLD that relies on your work without attribution, please point it out.

Quote:


When you "confronted" me about my alleged "theft," I explained the research that went into, and the proper citation of sources in, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector much as I have done above. If anyone has expressed hatred, I think it is you, who wrote back to me in 2002, in terminating our correspondence: "A pox on you and your house."

As for my "attacking" you, it consists of such things as responding to a veiled attack that you publicly made against AntiPolygraph.org and me in 2003 (see, "A Response to Doug Williams," 1 August 2003) and pointing out your having masqueraded on this message board as a satisfied customer of your own services.

You accuse me of "mak[ing] unfounded accusations against [you] at every opportunity." What unfounded accusations have I made against you?
 
Quote:


A comparison of your current "Frequently Asked Question" page (cited in the first message in this thread) with your 2003 comments suggests that you are, if anything even more "upset" with me now than you were then.

Quote:


I do not now work, nor have I ever, for "the Iranians."

Quote:


Then please explain:

1) What have I stolen? Where did I rely without attribution on something you wrote?

2) What fraud have I committed?

3) What lie(s) have I told?

Mr. Williams has quietly revised the remarks on his "Frequently Asked Questions" page that gave rise to my present challenge to him. Deletions are struck through. Additions are underlined:

Quote:

Doug,

I hope that someone else is posting using your name.  I have always tried to give you the benefit of a doubt.  This last posting is disturbing to say the least.  I have witnessed disagreements being settled in the way that you suggest.  Most of the nastiest fights I ever saw were in prison and they rarely stopped with the first event.  The confrontations became more deadly until the combatants were isolated or physically damaged beyond repair.

Take a deep breath and repost.

Regards.

Doug Williams wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 8:13pm:


When you've dug yourself into a hole, the first step in extricating yourself is to stop digging. On Saturday, 13 November 2004, someone did indeed register on this message board as "Doug_Williams." However, at the time, anyone could register using any e-mail address: authentication was not required. The person registering as "Doug_Williams" used the e-mail address doug@polygraph.org and used an IP address that did not appear to originate in your home state of Oklahoma. Suspecting foul play, I deleted the account. Twenty minutes later, someone again registered under the name DougWilliams, this time using your correct e-mail address, doug@polygraph.com. But because the registration originated from the same IP group as the earlier registration, I again suspected foul play, deleted the account, and blocked that IP group's access to AntiPolygraph.org. The next day, I sent you the following e-mail message explaining what had happened:

Quote:


I received no reply from you. Your apparent acknowledgment now that you are indeed responsible for these registrations only further confirms the previous strong evidence (based on traffic analysis of AntiPolygraph.org's logs for the relevant dates, which have been preserved) that you are indeed responsible for the 4x4man postings.

Quote:


Then I'll allow others to judge the merits of your statements.

Quote:


So be it.

Quote:


I'm afraid I don't share your view that violence is an appropriate way of resolving differences over matters of fact.

Quote:


I received no reply from you. Your apparent acknowledgment now that you are indeed responsible for these registrations only further confirms the previous strong evidence (based on traffic analysis of AntiPolygraph.org's logs for the relevant dates, which have been preserved) that you are indeed responsible for the 4x4man postings.


Yes, George, 4X4MAN did post from a server in my home state of Oklahoma, since that is where he lives!  He is a friend of mine, we became friends when I helped him pass his test to become a police officer, he came to my defense, and he posted his testimonial to me!  And no, I will not give you his name to protect myself from your slanderous lies!

You have lied about me and I have challenged you to an old fashioned fist fight. – where I come from, what you have said amounts to “fighting words”.  You have proved you are a coward and you refused to accept my challenge.  Now I tell you as you have told me  PUT UP (your fists) OR SHUT UP (your lying mouth).

Obviously now you are not just a liar, a thief, and a fraud, you are also a coward!

Quote: