After a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all  of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. 

If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT
study? 

Sanhco Panza

Are you referring to the part of the study that said specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection? 

Or are you referring to their comments about pre-employment examination, which incidentally DID NOT conclude that the results of pre employment examinations were inaccurate. If you read the study you will see that NAS had a problem with the inference that past behavior was an accurate predictor of future behavior. If this is so, please explain why Mr. Mashke spends so much time talking about his education, experience and background making him the ideal applicant absent his failed polygraph. If you accept the premise that past behavior is not a reliable predictor of future behavior or performance, then we might as well do away with job applications all together and just hire whoever walks in the door first. 

Or are you talking about their conclusions concerning problems with espionage screening tests being subject to false positives. Any SCREENING test in any scientific discipline has an unacceptable false positive rate. That is why they are called screening tests. A positive result on a screening test just indicates the need for more specific testing. 

While the NAS study did point out the need for improved research, I don't see it as the scathing indictment of polygraph your Illustrious Potentate or whatever he is calling himself this week tries to represent the study to be. 

In regards to your reply, we may be arguing semantics, but no,  I don't consider the NAS report to be a research study regarding the accuracy and validity of polygraph. I consider it to ba an analysis of existing studies. Its criticisms are not so much directed at polygraph, but rather its opinion regarding the state of polygraph research at the time their analysis was conducted. This does not mean that its study is invalid, Its just not independent research regarding the accuracy and validity of polygraph. 

Again why don't you commission your own scientific study instead of just collecting war stories from disgruntled posters and calling it "Proof?"

Sancho Panza

Well there are some things about the NAS study that aren't exactly favorable to what this site purports to be doing, ie helping an innocent examinee pass his/ her polygraph,

"Some examinees who have not committed crimes, security breaches, or related offenses, or who have little to hide, might nevertheless engage in countermeasures with the intent to minimize their chances of false positive test results (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). This strategy is not risk-free for ... examinees. There is evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001). "

If the countermeasures taught here might actually be responsible for an innocent examinee fail his test then what exactly is the service you are providing?  

I don't believe for one minute that the founder of this site cares one tiny bit about the innocent examinee. I think he got his feelings hurt because he was unable to successfully lie in his polygraph examination and has decided to try to extract revenge by trying to inhibit law enforcement's ability to do it's job. He does so in a carefully worded manner from outside the United States in order to avoid indictment for attempted obstruction of justice. His preaching does very little to disguise his real intent. 

At best he is helping innocent people fail their polygraph examinations and at worse he is trying to help criminals get away with their crimes. All for the sake of grinding his personal axe because he was unable to handle rejection. How mature is that?

Sancho Panza

An add on: Read the post be "stoppolyabusenow" and explain to her how wrong she is. Her polygrapher should be prosecuted for the way he treated her.

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 7:38pm:

Can you tell us the specifics that led you to form that conclusion about a man you have never met or spoken to?

What leads you to believe he lied on his polygraph, rather than to accept his story that he told the truth and was incorrectly called a liar?

I'm also curious as to what law he is violating that would lead to his indictment.  Can you please provide a link to the state or federal law you believe he is violating by posting information that is already freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it?

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 11:27am:


He did that after he told the truth on his polygraph and failed.



SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 11:27am:


Again, he did that after he told the truth and failed.

Also, I think it is relevant to point out that George continually tells posters on this board that people applying for a position of public trust have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth on their application and polygraph.  That doesn’t sound like the advice of a person who lied on his own pre-employment polygraph, does it?



SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 11:27am:


The implication inherent in your post is that, were George not currently residing outside the United States, he would be facing possible indictment for attempted obstruction of justice.  I would still like to see an explanation of what specific laws you believe George is violating, or would be violating were it not for his “carefully worded manner”, by posting information on the polygraph that is already freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it.







SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 11:27am:


Personally, I’ve never been to NAMBLA’s website, so I wouldn’t know what is posted there.  I’ll take your word for it.

Regardless of what that despicable organization has or doesn’t have on their website, it has no bearing on the content of this website.  Drawing a comparison between this website and an organization that supports and endorses child molestation is nothing more than a cheap shot and an example of argumentum ad hominem.  

The original topic of this thread was a challenge to skeptics to prove thatr polygraphy CAN'T detect lies.  It is not their job to do so.  It is the job of objective researchers to determine its validity and accuracy.  I have never been polygraphed, nor do I know anyone who has been.  My interest in this subject followed a Dr. Phil child molester/lie detector episode and I simply wanted to review the scientific research on lie detection.  I have seen nothing credible in support of lie detection, whether it be polygraphy, voice, chemical, or whatever.  It seem that even a confession can't be trusted if the interrogators place the right pressure on the right subject.  All I've heard in support of polygraphic lie detection is purely anecdotal.

ecchasta wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 2:27pm:


If I were to agree with you, which I don't.  I believe the polygraph examiner did know whether or not Mr. Mashke was telling the truth. 

But even if I did agree with you that neither sarge or the polygrapher  know for sure whether or not he was lying I do have circumstantial evidence that Mr. Mashke condones not telling the truth.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that anyone who says that it is OK to lie and even publishes a book containing that philosophy may be a patently untruthful individual or in simple terms a liar.  

So, based on the evidence and information at hand. we know several pieces of information that allow one to draw a reasonable conclusion. 

#1Mr. Mashke states that he did not pass his polygraph. 
#2 He states that he did not lie. 
#3Mr. Mashke co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. 

On the other hand
#1 The examiner that  conducted Mr. Mashkes polygraph exam, SA Jack Trimarco, passed a pre-employment polygraph examination similar if not exactly like the one Mr. Mashke failed. 
#2. SA Trimarco rendered a professional opinion that Mr. Mashke was deceptive in his responses. 
#3. Mr. Tremarco did not author a book repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. In fact I have never read anywhere in any document that he has written where he has condoned lying or deliberately concealing information when one is the subject of a background or criminal investigation. 

It seems to me that deciding who to believe based on those comparisons shouldn't be that difficult.  Any one who tells the world that it's OK to lie shouldn't be offended when someone chooses to take them at their word and brand them as someone who lies. Face it, when you tell people you believe in lying, your credibility will suffer. 

Have polygraph errors been made?  Absolutely. Any scientific test has an error rate. But the fact that errors occur occasionally does not, in and of itself,  mean that the process is not a valid one. 

There is NO evidence that an error or mistake was made in Mr. Mashkes case other than the word of a man who says lying is OK. If one foolishly accepts that it's OK to lie as long as you can be justified in their own mind, one might also conclude that it was OK to lie about drug use going into an examination, if in their own mind they could justify the lie by convincing himself that their prior drug activity was or should be inconsequential to the nature of the inquiry. 

This site seems to want to use the complaints of those who claim," I failed my test and I told the truth." in combination with a few probable errors an attempt to mislead the public into thinking they are the same thing. They are not. 

If I may reiterate my initial post This website bases almost all of its conclusions and theories on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. If that were true, Polygraph could anecdotally bury those people who claim they were done wrong with volumes and volumes of accurate and positive outcomes. 

Sancho Panza