That's rich Dr. Maschke  YOU of all people calling me dishonest. 

You promote dishonesty with every egotistical beath you take. "It is hard to say which of the two we ought most to lament,--the unhappy man who sinks under the sense of his dishonesty, or him who survives it."  You certainly fall in the latter category. 

I almost wish I had known you when you were alive

Sancho Panza

Notguilty1 I would like to addess your intelligence.

Presuming it actually exists. do you have any idea where it might be currenltly located?  .

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 2:52pm:


Sancho, like most polygraphers on this board you all too frequently resort to these ad hominem attacks against anyone who challenges you to debate.

I suggest you mount your donkey, Rucío, and ride off into the sunset.

Dr. Maschke, You are playing a “label game” attempting to mislead people into believing that you are promoting honesty.   "Relevant Question" is a label used by polygraphers to identify those questions that directly address the matter under investigation. Could a better label be found? Yes probably, but that is the one they chose. Polygraphers used to refer to "comparison questions" as "control questions" until they arrived at a new consensus regarding that label, but many polygraphers still use the old terminology even though "Control Questions" don't really "control" anything or provide a "control" in the strictest scientific terminology .  "Neutral questions" used to be called "Irrelevant Questions" even though they are not at all irrelevant to the process. Once again it appears that a consensus among examiners brought a change in terminology, although the purpose of the question and its relevance to the overall process hasn't changed.

All that being said every question on a polygraph examination has relevance because they all have a significant and demonstrable bearing on the testing process. Thus every question on the test addresses a relevant issue whether or not it is labeled as a "Relevant Question”. Intentionally attempting to manufacture misleading responses to any question on a polygraph test is dishonest. Your book is full of evidence that proves that you are trying to justify encourage, condone and also trying to instruct people in the mechanics of successfully lying on polygraph tests. Do I really have to go back and cut and paste ALL of those quotes again? Talk about being knowingly dishonest, you co-wrote the book

So if you want to say that you have never advised people to lie to questions bearing the label” Relevant Question" OK.  Because I think you are well aware that it is impossible to suppress an authentic reaction. 

But for to claim that you Quote:
is patently false. 


The dishonesty in your statement; Quote:
lies mainly in your failure to disclose what the examinee must really accomplish while sitting in a polygraph chair, in order to produce a single  indistinguishable response. 

The main problem with your advice concerning manufacturing responses to comparison questions is that an examinee who has read your book still has no idea what data collected from his reactivity to relevant questions might look like on the day he is taking the test. 

So in order have the remotest possibility of successfully using countermeasures he has to:
1. Read your book to the point that he believes he can accurately follow your instructions and if your techniques actually work, use them to
2. accurately mimic the physiological changes brought about by autonomic arousal and collected by several different sensor components while
3. blindly guessing how much of the technique must be applied in order to be enough to overshadow his reactivity to the relevant questions and how much would be too much in order to avoid suspicion brought about by their conspicuous appearance,
4. in comparison to data collected from a true autonomic reaction that
5. he can’t see and
6. he can’t suppress
7.and repeat the entire process on each comparison question in such a fashion that his manufactured reactions don't all look exactly alike or manufactured.
8. in the presence of a trained examiner
      a.      thoroughly familiar with the instrumentation of the polygraph, 
      b.      considerable experience looking at collected data, and 
      c.      training in detecting exactly the type of countermeasures you endorse, 
9. while the data is being recorded for further review, analysis,  and quality control if needed
10. Oh yes, and he has to listen to the questions too.   

Does that sound as simple as you make it sound in your book? Looking for something easier to do? Try standing on top of three balanced bowling balls while juggling chain saws. While both might be possible it is unlikely a person would be successful at either just by reading a book about it

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:


I'm not playing any "label game." The relevant questions are the ones that are of true concern. I've never advocated that persons seeking positions of public trust should answer these questions dishonestly.

Quote:


The Lie Behind the Lie Detector does not encourage people to lie about relevant issues. Your suggestion that all questions are "relevant" is an exercise in casuistry.

Quote:


Indeed, I've never advised people to answer relevant questions untruthfully.

Quote:


Relevant issues are those addressed by the relevant questions in a polygraph examination. Again, I've never advised anyone to answer such questions untruthfully.

Quote:


Your argument that trying to successfully use countermeasures is like an impossible juggling task is undermined by peer-reviewed research in which half of test subjects succeeded in beating the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction. And even experienced polygraph examiners could not detect the countermeasures used. Citations are provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Sancho Panza, your credibility is spent. You destroyed it with your deliberate lie about the existence of published studies showing that countermeasures like those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You know there are no such studies. How did you ever think you could get away with such an outrageous falsehood? You might get away with saying such a thing to examinees in your polygraph suite who won't risk contradicting you. But such an outrageous lie won't fly here.

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:



Sancho, My attempt at trying to discuss this matter with an intelligent person ended a long time ago when I realized who I was dealing with. It has further been quelled by the realization that you are nothing more than a troll looking to feel superior behind your keyboard.
The picture with your screen name on it, ( not your real name) was not intended as pornography which most people viewing it would agree. It was simply a depiction of what is obviously going on with you.
A empty man holding, from what seems to be his "missing" manhood a shotgun to shoot at others, both figuratively and professionally. 
I know this, in the mind of a shallow man is lost but I don't post to this site to please you.

The truth is inconvenient for you and your suggestion that you respond to me so I don't feel left out is preposterous.
I am the reason and common sense that you need to fight to keep your scam, or your trolling going. 
If your arguments had any validity at all in fact you would have no need to waste your time with us here.
The posts here that confirm that this pseudo-science of yours is not accurate, consistent or in fact useful for deception detection are squashing your arguments on a daily basis and you have no one backing your views so you resort to attacks on these peoples intelligence, honesty and resolve to right a wrong.

Actually, the picture was not accurate at all since nothing on you can possibly be that big.

Peace my hollow man

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 12:08am:


I will when you stop providing me with the "artistic fodder"   

Quote:


"He's a pretty kid, too. I mean I don't know, I gotta problem if I should crappity smack him or fight him. ..."

Raging Bull, 1980