Quote:
   

TheNoLieGuy4U,

What "documented efffectiveness" are you referring to?

"Occasional" false positive?

[i]...it is reasonable to expect even with optimistic assessments of polygraph test accuracy that each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive[/i]  NAS Report

How does it help the national security by relying on an UNRELIABLE process?

First step is to focus on the real "bad guys", and spend less time trying to defend a process that routinely eliminates honest, qualified, patriotic people, while at the same time let's people like Aldrich Ames sail through! 


Quote:


First you say that he will be dealt with swiftly and severely, then you post this.  And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously!

Based on "traffic analysis", both are the same entity.

Uh, notice the same wordy, long winded style, and pattern of making assinine assumptions, inconsistent claims, and false allegation, rather than addressing facts.

You may have crossed the line yourself with the statement "you will be delt with one way or the other", which would include assassination. That is a grave threat coming from a federal intel. agent. Maybe/maybe not federal courts would frown on such a threat. 

No legal opinion here. Just my personal opinion.

In responding to your post let me say that in this equation it is YOU who has first suggested violence and not I.  When I said GM would be dealt with one way or the other, it has the meaning that on one extreme nothing may be done in where he just fades away as a minor fly on the wall who made little impact or concern, other than to remind the home owner (intel. community) that such pests exist when you open the door too wide sometimes.  OR, that perhaps the U.S. Gov. may elect either under the UCMJ or other Federal statutes to prosecute GM and give him his jury of 12 to which he would be entitled. They would let he, his Attorney(s), and supporters then make their case that they did no harm to this nation's security.  You know, it really begs the question though !!!  If others saw the Al Queda piece as I did, who had also written in, as perceiving GM bragging that our enemy did not fear the polygraph's use, AND he, known to be in contact with radical Iranian nationals and other middle easterners there in Holland, and able to read and write their respective languages; Who translated all of this for THEM ?  I know of ONLY one person so obsessed, who is such a zealot, who has gone off the deep end, and who has the ability to have done so in such technical terms; and that person is GEORGE MASCHKE !!!!   I wonder if he ever considered that there might be a turncoat / defector among our enemies who would testify to same, or if such a person existed whom GM met with who could say he did so as a tutor.   
  Your suggestion of Assasination is a product of your mind, and while I thank you for having such thoughts, it did not originate from my writings or mind.  I have no fear of being spoken to by a U.S. Attorney probing this generic man's actions in what GM has done, my writings to him as opinions, or my character being looked at by such legal bodies.  If it comes to that, GM will need a much better lawyer than I would ever need.   
  Thank You TwoBlock for relating your posting, and that it was not a legal opinion.  I'm sure GM may be seeking a legal opinion though as his liberty may be the one at risk and not mine.  His are the actions of what is known as a scoundral.  Such obsessed minds are historically tunnel visioned and the difference between what they achieve, and were capable in life of achieving are sadly far apart.   

  If, as you suggested, and not I, that George were "Assasinated", it also begs the question as to what would be written on his tombstone. 

                            Here "LIES" George W. Maschke
                               -He had a great education
                               -He had such great potential
                               -He became obsessed over an 
                                inanimate object called the polygraph.
                               -He WAS an American and  Veteran 
                               -HE BETRAYED ALL THE ABOVE
                                     TRY to rest in peace 

   



Just a creative thought !!

NoLieGuy4U

If someone told me that I will be dealt with one way or the other, and I knew he had no legal recoarse, the only thing in my thinking would be bodily harm. I assure you the hit would be made by me. You offered no explination to the statement and given our intel. com. history, what the hell is one to think. Any one who is not hell bent on destroying George's and this sites credibility knows exactly to what I was referring so don't try to saddle me with the suggestion.

I have no idea what George's job is and I expect neither do you unless he has put such a burr under the Intel. com's.  saddle that you have wasted the taxpayers money having him investigated and the investigation turned up nothing. I think what's happening here is a lot of expectorating rhetoric b.s. I can assure you one thing. If I was in George's shoes, you and Jack Trimarco would have to do a lot of proving to a federal judge and jury.

George's character is so far above that of his detractors that the attempts to malign him have been totally without merit and equally without success. He has called me down a couple of times for answering a gig at me with a much stronger gig in return therefore, I do not post as strongly as I would like sometimes out of respect for him, this site and visitors who come here to learn.

You polygraphers are doing yourselves great harm the way you carry on here mouthing the same old crap day after day. Occasionally  one will come here with the intellectual ability to debate.

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 12:00am:


No, there aren't. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a "wartime version" of the 1st Amendment, which simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Quote:


So you actually believe that by publicly telling the truth about polygraphy I have committed treason? And am I to understand that you would be pleased to see me executed for my "speech crime?" Was it not you who not so long ago lectured me:

Quote:


On a historical note, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not convicted of treason, but rather conspiracy to commit espionage. The appropriateness of their death sentence is debatable.

Quote:


Large numbers of false positives are entirely consistent with what one would reasonably expect from using an invalid test to assess the honesty and integrity of individuals. Although jobs may ultimately be filled by those who are lucky enough to "pass," the process is eminently unfair to the many who are falsely branded as liars by their government.

Quote:


Actually, the NAS review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph has much in common with the process of peer-review for a scientific journal. It is a critical review by experts with a variety of relevant expertise who had no vested interest in the outcome.

Quote:


No, they're not. None of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening.

Quote:


Again, none of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening. They were nominated to the panel based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. Their names were published on-line in advance, and members of the public were given the opportunity to object to any of the nominees. I am not aware that any objections were raised with regard to any of the panel members.

Quote:


No, he didn't. The U.S. Department of Justice dropped a raft of charges against Dr. Lee in exchange for his agreement to plead guilty to a single count of mishandling classified information. At his plea hearing, the presiding judge apologized to Dr. Lee for the unfair treatment he received.

Quote:


The "fuzzy headed liberal" judge who apologized to Dr. Lee for the way he was treated was appointed by that "fuzzy headed liberal," President Ronald Reagan.

Quote:


Would you be an example of the "best and brightest" chosen for polygraph school?

Quote:


Again, none of the NAS panel members were themselves subject to polygraph screening. No matter how good or bright the polygraph operator, the polygraph is indeed to blunt an instrument: it simply cannot detect deception. Polygraphic lie tests have no grounding in the scientific method. As Professor Fienberg also observed, "Polygraph testing has been the gold standard, but it's obviously fool's gold." Of course, it's only obvious to those who are not blinded by self-interest.

       George,

In response: 

I said "Sorry George, you CAN'T have it both ways, even the press knows that in time of war there are limits on the first amendment."   

No, there aren't. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a "wartime version" of the 1st Amendment, which simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

My reply:  Take note George, in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 over a thousand persons like you have been convicted, not to mention succeeding acts that followed thereafter in WWII, Korea, Etc..  With national approval, our war time Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, at the outset of the war on terrorism, asked television network executives to refrain from airing video releases from Osama bin Laden fearing coded messages to his followers.  Even front line reporters routinely face access restrictions and daily Pentagon briefings rarely answer all press questions. Do such restrictions violate First Amendment values or do they hold legitimate national security purposes?  You, from foreign soil, and in the company of those who are in fact radical Islamists with whom you associate, do not have our nation’s BEST interests at heart.  The first amendment is best served who put the nation first as a patriot before their own selfish ambition or in your case tunnel vision revenge.    

Polygraph is an undisputed tool of the intelligence community.  It is protected by several acts of legislation regarding export, training, etc.; and you as a former Intelligence Officer knew this at all times.  Your mere desire to participate in a debate about it’s accuracy and utility might be one thing if done here on U.S. Soil, but rather you have attempted to directly compromise it from abroad for the benefit of our nation’s internal criminals and/or enemies, and are among the very few with the technical capability to translate it to the language of our enemies.  Therefore, your attempt to hide behind the first amendment should not be honored by anyone other than the most left wing of Judges; but I grant that you are entitled to a jury of your peers and your day in court.  Merely saying you were trying to "Help" someone is not a defense from the above, as in reality someone of your life experience an education knows that there is / was both a spirit to the oath you took and document(s) you signed about the special role of having been an Intelligence Officer.   

I believe a Federal prosecutor, whether they be from the military or Justice Dept. or both separately in your case, should convene no less than an investigative body in regard to your activity to determine not only the effect of it, but the proper punishment for the attempt.   

Is it not yet clear to you that the intelligence community, of which the polygraph is a long standing contributing member, has not been paralyzed by you attempting to compromise the control / comparison questions.  Despite your banter they have never needed more talent, and the federal school is booked eighteen months in advance with Federal agencies actually competing for seats in it to get such talent.   

You have at your worst become the Patron Saint of Pedophiles, or a brain bar of sorts for those who had an artificial sense of false expectations about receiving a letter of contingency offer of hire vs. a bona fide offer of hire.  As the bible says, many are called, but few are chosen.  Your flock, the unchosen, wallow in their pitty claiming we are somehow lessened by their not being called upon or chosen.  Wisdom on yours and their parts would rather dictate that you need to go to plan B or C  ( or in your case plan H for Holland) and do something else positive with your life.  You “Aniti’s” are a real downer to read here.   

I Said "If a nexus can be made that Al Quada used your work as a reference point, and your intent or result (despite the hollow platitudes of only trying to Help) was to hurt, cripple, maim, lessen, or effect U.S. Intelligence (National or International) then you get body slammed.  I have made my position clear that you are no less than in the same catagory of the very people whom you claimed evaded U.S. Intelligence via Aldrich Ames and others, but they did so for money.  Your betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations."    

So you actually believe that by publicly telling the truth about polygraphy I have committed treason? And am I to understand that you would be pleased to see me executed for my "speech crime?" Was it not you who not so long ago lectured me:

I've been very clear that you are entitled to a jury of your peers for whatever charges a federal prosecutor, or UCMJ military prosecutor, may deem fit for you.  As you have NOT been fit in honoring your obligation to the intelligence community.  At the very least, I would like to see you forfeit your claim to a military pension for twenty years in the reserves based on your attempted damages inflicted on the intelligence community.  Sedition, treason, espionage are for Judges, Jurys, and court rooms, as I alone am not fit to make that call and bend to the system for that.  I only call'em as I see'em at the sidelines, and apparantly am not alone. 

I said before "Guys like you want to ban guys like me and throw out Freedom of expression, Freedom of the press, etc. Guys like me have spent a career sworn to uphold that constitution and its rights for the individual"

This was in response to a poster who asked you to ban me from this site for my minority opinion alone. My desire to be heard here for my contribution is NOT the equal of YOUR acting from foreign soil in assitance to those who would use your sight to, at the very least, cheat the system, and at worst aid an abett he enemies of the USA, a topic you have covered in the Al Queda piece.  By the way, I was not lecturing you on this, but rather a common poster on this.  Get YOUR ego out of it. It wasn't written TO you, but rather was ABOUT such a site, and it's fair role if moderated fairly.   

Actually, the NAS review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph has much in common with the process of peer-review for a scientific journal. It is a critical review by experts with a variety of relevant expertise who had no vested interest in the outcome.

WHAT ??? Ofcourse they, and their scientific breatheran had a vested interest in the outcome !!!!  They, as a group, don't want ANY accountability as the arrogance of their PhD's makes them feel above it all. 

Again, none of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening. They were nominated to the panel based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. Their names were published on-line in advance, and members of the public were given the opportunity to object to any of the nominees. I am not aware that any objections were raised with regard to any of the panel members.

I accept your point that while the NAS study was going on those panel members were not subject to polygraph at that time.  However, they, their PhD breatheran, are of a pre-disposed mindset that they are above accountability and want to avoid that reality.  That they find the polygraph to be less than 100% is not a surprise to even the pro-polygraph people who accept different rates of accuracy for different types of testing.  The only science which IS 100% is Mathamatics.  You start from a false premise that it MUST be 100% accurate to be used, and clearly underestimate it's value by saying it is at not much better than chance levels, as their are too many mathamatical hand scored charts to argue that point.  Far too much has been made of false positives and/or false negatives on this site when compared to the totality of the whole body of work as a collective contribution, in an attempt to disregard the role and mission of the polygraph professionals.  My point, is that the NAS, as a self appointed body, was NOT the peer review study it claims to be, and rather PhD Psychophysiologist researchers (Non-Polygraph People) are the proper group to have performed such research and/or peer review. NAS was Not free of bias.   

  Would you be an example of the "best and brightest" chosen for polygraph school?

I have NOT held myself up to you as being selected by any government agency as being such or sent by them to a polygraph school.  Only that I have worked in an associated community.  I do however in fairness to you claim bias in that I have seen the real world results of both polygraph testing vs. non-testing in applicant screening.  Also, the advances of the computerized testing being done being far better than the analog test to which you were subjected to.  Also, that the fine professionals in this field like Trimarco and Youngblood all seem to have made incredible contributions to their country or community respectively, whereas you sit on the side lines in another nation bitching about how George did not get to play on the first string team.  But No, you instead went accross the field and have acted as an advisor to the OTHER team in regard to your former team mates play book.  That action doesn't work as fair play in sports, the intelligence community, or in life.  One one thing we can all agree, your actions here, disclosures, and attitude is that of one who is clearly an unfulfilled human being with an irrational fictitious theme of Man vs. Machine, and you now want revenge.  That you cloak that effort in a claim of ideological debate as an academic exists only in your mind, and others do in fact see through it. 

  By the way, only those who are fools debate the innocense of the Rosenbergs and how they betrayed this country for their communist / world socialist beliefs; not unlike those who to this day believe Ojay didn't do it.  Such minds of mush are not the material intelligence services and law enforcement are composed of.  Thank God !!! 

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 10^th, 2008 at 6:38pm:


FYI, one of the NAS report committee members, John Cacioppa, a psych professor at the University of Chicago, wrote something called The Handbook of Psychophysiology. Doesn't polygraph fall in that category? Perhaps you have a copy of it? It's in its third edition...

Another member, John Blascovich, a psych professor at UC-Santa Barbara, lists psychophysiology as one of his main research interests. From his publications listed on the UCSB website, it seems most of it centers around cardiovascular responses to psychological stimuli. Isn't that one of the channels measured by the polygraph?

And yet another member, Richard Davidson, a psych professor at Wisconsin-Madison, researches psychophysiological response to emotional stimuli. Isn't that one of the bases of CQT polygraph?

Then there are those non-psychophysiological people they had on the committee: statisticians, mathematicians, engineers, and gasp, lawyers. It's always the lawyers, isn't it? 

And what peer review? The NAS committee had the audacity to only send their report to no less than 17 outside academics and researchers for their comments. Seventeen reviewers renowned in their respective fields. Geez, the last thing I sent in for peer review only had 2 reviewers and they were anonymous. Why'd the NAS even bother? 

And further, only one of those worked at a national lab, Sally Keller-McNulty. Real hellraiser that one, heads up the Statistical Sciences Group at Sandia National Labs, former president and Fellow of the American Statistical Association, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, surely she must have biased the NAS report, right? 

But it's really all those uppity Ph.D.'s with their beliefs in and adherence to scientific rigor that stick in your craw, right?

Anyhow, given your strong and demonstrably false assertions that there is bias in the NAS report, George must be shaking in his boots at your efforts to have him indicted and extradited back to the US for his efforts in summarizing the existing research on the polygraph into one book...

Btw, the research in George's book is available to anyone with internet access and a library card. I'm sure the U.S. Attorney's Office is convening a grand jury as we speak...

Regards...

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

I'm not emotional about anything. I've never taken a polygraph, I'm merely a criminal justice researcher who examines and evaluates sex offender supervision techniques. My interest in the polygraph arose from that and the bulk of research that I've read indicates to me that there is both utility (i.e. bogus pipeline) and futility (i.e. the base rate problem and low specificity) in CQT polygraph testing. I've also come to the conclusion that the futility outweighs the utility. I do, however, believe that testing grounded in cognition such as the GKT/concealed information testing has promise and would not only be utile but useful in PCSOT.

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

Not that it matters to you but a literature review is research. I would also call their efforts a meta-analysis. One needn't do statistical analyses to do meta-analysis... 

Additionally, the NAS committee was tasked to review the research on the polygraph and reach a conclusion from the currect state of research. As a polygrapher, your efforts to undermine their conclusions by calling them biased are more emotionally based than anything I've done...

Again, you make the claim that the people on the NAS committee were subject to polygraph testing and you've been provided evidence that none were, are, or will be. Rather than claim bias, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, it's ad hominem and sounds like sour grapes on your part because you don't like their conclusions...

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

If you actually read the report, the NAS called for more research into polygraph and lie detection but they, and I think correctly, called for the research to be performed by those without any vested interest in polygraphy. The DACA hardly qualify as a body without any vested interest in polygraphy as they make their living from it. If you think the NAS is biased, do you really believe that the DACA are unbiased?

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

There is a better test, it's call the guilty knowledge test. Why don't you guys use it instead?

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

To quote the late Richard Feynman: "Reality should take precedence over public relations because Nature cannot be fooled."

Regards...