Evan S wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2007 at 4:26am:


Welcome Evan. I would like to recommend some additional reading, other than the antipolygraph literature. Scientists should always attempt a more full-bodied approach when engaging in epistemic dialogue about a given subject. Although I realize you do not work for the CIA, a good read would be John Sullivan's book on national security polygraphing---here is the amazon link to read some snips;
http://www.amazon.com/Gatekeeper-Memoirs-CIA-Polygraph-Examiner/dp/159797045X/re...

Happy Holidays!
E

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2007 at 12:33pm:


Pure speculation George. Testing John on whether he was dislosing intelligence for having written a book with several hundred pages of notes----it must have been a very difficult exam indeed---for both John and his Examiner. Also, if countermeasures are so effective and undetectable, why then would a polygraph master fail his test? Once more, why would they even bother testing him? His potato would have been 100 times hotter than yours, so to speak. 

To further make matters more complicated, the CIA is not known for being on the up and up about ANYTHING. They admit as much.Regardless, the book demonstrates for the first time in the CIA's history, that polygraph has caught thousands of intrepid baddies---versus this site's claim that not one has been caught. And if you accuse spies as being gullible or naive regarding polygraph post test interrogation, you are grossly mistaken.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Regarding the message box, is there a spelling checker, synonym list, and dictionary lookup?  It seems the icons do not support these functions.

I want to commend George Maschke for starting this website.  I regard the purpose of this website is to educate the public exactly what a polygraph is and what it is not.

Yes I am aware of the book by John Sullivan.  Recently the Book Review segment on CSPAN featured John defending his book in front of a small audience at a bookstore (or maybe it was a library).  I would have thought the CIA cleared his book prior to publication, as this is standard operating procedure for individuals employed on classified programs or who work in classified organizations.  John acknowledged the existence of the AntiPolygraph.org website and mentioned George by name.  I wish I recorded this program.

Regarding the statement that security screening polygraphs have not caught a single spy, we have to define what this means.  Here is my take:  Did a problematic security screening polygraph set off a sequence of events that led to an indictment/conviction of an individual on charges of espionage?  In other words, had it not been for the polygraph, the indictment/conviction would not have happened.

I assume the polygraph by itself would not be admissible in a federal court, but a problematic polygraph might trigger an investigation in which hard evidence is uncovered, admissible in court.

Also is it correct to assume that suspected cases of espionage must be referred to the FBI?  If an individual fails a sufficient number of polygraphs (maybe four or so), must the security managers refer this case to the FBI for further investigation?

Regards,
Evan S