People who read and post on this site would do well to remember that the founder of this web site co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.  
This justifiably calls his veracity into question on just about any issue.

People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.

Sancho Panza

The only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that  that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?
 
Sancho Panza

Quote:


You have to fight fire with fire.  Polygraph interrogators lie all the time in an attempt to get information they can distort, and blow out of all proportion to disqualify an applicant, or ruin the career of an employee.

Lying to a con artist is not really lying.

Your whole post is example of the distortions perpetrated by polygraph examiners.  George wrote his book after being conned (like a lot of us here) during a polygraph.  He found out the same thing was happening to many others.  He researched the polygraph, saw what a sham it was, and put together an informative website so people could learn the con behind the polygraph and be better prepared.

TC

I think it is a fair question to ask someone why they would believe someone who wrote a book that endorses lying is going to tell them the truth.

Mr. Cullen told us he believes that lying isn't lying depending on to whom you are lying. I find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects. 

You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack on Dr. Mashcke when my comments concerning his book are true and verifiable from its contents.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck common sense indicates its probably a duck. 

Do you believe that Dr. Mashcke  would be critical of polygraph if he had somehow managed to pass his test? Do you think his site would exist if he had somehow managed to pass his polygraph test? 

Do you?

One of Dr. Mashcke's biggest supporters and noted polygraph opponent is former FBI Agent Drew Richardson. Mr. Richardson should be not only very familiar with sensitive National Security issues from his work at the FBI he should be as familiar if not more familiar wiith Dr. Mashcke than just about anyone here. 

On at least 2 occasions I asked Mr. Richardson the following questions:
Based on everything you know about Dr. Mashcke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashcke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not? Think about it and be truthful.  

Mr. Richardson has never answered those questions. I can only presume that based on his other postings he certainly isn't worried about telling me something I may not agree with. That leaves me strongly suspecting that he doesn't want to hurt Dr. Mashcke's feelings by giving me a truthful response. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 10:27pm:


I cannot expect to guess what George or anyone else "would" do had thing gone differently.
I would like to think that he would have joined the ranks of experts in the field that found that polygraphs do not detect anything when it come to lies, and exposed it as he's done here. Just my humble opinion mind you.
Now better question is:
Does anyone think that Mr. Sancho or any of his cronies would be posting here if he didn't have to worry about the truth being told?
I THINK NOT!! 
There have been many people that have stood up for truth regardless of personal gain. 
Too bad Sancho you cannot be included in that group.

Quote:

Polygraphers DO lie.  The whole test is predicated on a lie.  Namely, convincing the the "mark" that the test is more accurate than it really is.  Intimidating them.  Telling them (like Mr. Lingenfelter at NSA) told me, that there is simply no way you can lie without the machine detecting it.  That is NOT TRUE, and he knows it!   
I have no problem with anyone who lies to a con artist who is purposely being dishonest in an attempt to trick them.   

FYI, an example of a  REAL lie would be Aldrich Ames answering "NO!" to a question about unauthorized foreign contacts.   You, as a polygrapher, should know this. 

TC

Sergeant1107 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 6:27am:


What do you mean by origional response? My original response to this site was directed to Dr. Mashcke:
Quote:


How is that an ad hominum attack?

If I were in fact engaging in ad hominum attack, which I'm not, it would be a fair response to the attacks upon me that have occurred on this board. 

Pointing out the obvious conclusion that a person who writes a book justifying lying as well as trying to teach people how to lie successfully probably can't be trusted to tell the truth is a statement of reasonable linear determination. This isn't an unsupportable claim like those put forward by my opposition here, I can quote chapter and verse from Dr. Mashcke's own writings. 

Pointing out that Notguilty1,Twoblock, etc should not only be questioning the veracity of the material they regurgitate, but its source , and why is not ad hominum attack.

Sancho Panza