The poster LieBabyCryBaby has been banned. The decision to ban him from these forums comes after numerous violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy. In his own words: "I come around every now and then to ruffle your feathers and laugh at you, and then I find other entertainment."

At this time, we feel it is appropriate to disclose LieBabyCryBaby's true identity: Special Agent Shawn Hacking of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), currently assigned to DEA's Seattle Division.

The sort of behavior displayed on these forums by SA Hacking is particularly disturbing coming from a federal law enforcement officer. In view of the fact that SA Hacking at times posted from IP addresses registered to his employer, it is not clear whether his activity here is sanctioned by his superiors in the polygraph unit, Seattle Division SAC Arnold R. Moorin, or DEA senior management.

It should also be noted that before registering as "LieBabyCryBaby," SA Hacking had trolled here as AnalSphincter (he later deleted this registration). He simultaneously created a female sock-puppet and putative CIA employee, LoopyLuWho, to agree with and praise his posts as AnalSphincter.

While trolling as AnalSphincter, SA Hacking expressed the view that the risk of a false positive on a CQT polygraph examination is "Certainly less than your chances of dying in a plane crash." A view that no one with any understanding of polygraphy would share, and that it is hard to imagine SA Hacking himself truly believes.

UPDATE: A 2-mb PDF file with a compilation of all of Special Agent Hacking's posts as LieBabyCryBaby has been attached for reference purposes.

It would appear, based on the post from Administrator, that Dr. Maschke and Mr. Scalabrini are both more talented and considerably more patient than their badly behaved detractors.  They have demonstrated the investigative skills and perhaps interrogation skills that were questioned by these recent detractors.  And based upon the Administrator's accounting, they have exhibited years of patience with the last individual “outed” and in gathering information about the same.

I think, however, the greater takeaway message from this is not that George and Gino are smarter than these individuals and that they have the skills to out the mean spirited and those who misbehave, but that they have the ability to distinguish between those who merely disagree and those who seek to disrupt.  Public Servant of days gone by and Pailryder and YankeeDog of more recent times come to mind as examples of the former.  These and other polygraphers have debated issues and perhaps have disagreed with the site's hosts over these issues as much as those who have been outed.  The difference between the latter two groups is not only behavior but focus.   

Polygraph practice, policy, and procedure are topics that should be debated with vigor.  Personal attacks on the pro and anti-polygraph visitors to the site and the victims of polygraphy that come looking for explanation should be altogether disallowed.  Even argument from merely a position of authority should be discouraged.   

It would appear that all that George and Gino preach can be found within TLBTLD.  If there are errors, they should be pointed out with the EVIDENCE of such.  I personally have witnessed no evidence to indicate that these two individuals are not willing and prepared to be shown wrong about anything that they have proclaimed.

It should be fairly easy to distinguish what is fair game and relevant and what is not...

So is this guy a DEA polygrapher or active Special Agent?  At any rate, he was at one time an active SA conducting investigations, and interrogating suspects.

Applicants should always remember that many if not most agency polygraphers are actually trained INTERROGATORS.  Most applicants go in to a polygraph not know this, thinking the nice gent/lady about to "test" them are just polygraph "technicians".  It's a ruse.  You are going in the the polygraph room TO BE INTERROGATED!  Don't ever forget it.

Note, polygraphers here routinely deny that the polygraph is an interrogation.  This is reason enough to know that it actually IS.  You have to take the advice polygraphers give, and DO THE OPPOSITE!

To wit, they consistently advise applicants to "I am here to help you through this.", and "get everything off your chest", and "The more you tell me and talk to me THE BETTER!"  Yeah, right!

TC

Absolutely disgraceful post.  To reveal a potential identity of a user while hiding behind the "Administrator" moniker is both cowardly and distasteful.  You are obviously attempting to hurt someone who basically had an opinion and thus hurt your whittle feelings.   
This post must be the summarization of the actual integrity and consistent with the thought process this site represents.  The “Administrator”, who wishes not to be identified (hypocrite), in his attempt to condemn the views of someone who actually made good  points rather than act accordingly.   
It’s a shame that this site could actually have some validity instead of being shown for exactly what it is, a bunch of adults who cry, blame others, and hold vendetta’s, which is iron because that exactly what LBCB claimed and M quickly dismissed.   
The more you cry, whine, complain, conspire, and now harass others the more you give credence to what all of your detractors say about you.

meangino wrote on May 14^th, 2009 at 1:53pm:


You sir are a moron.  Who says that the Administrator is reliable?  Who said it was on a goverment computer?  Who ever said it was during his work hours?  If you know any of this please elaborate but if you're making assumptions, well good for you.
M should file a complaint, it would only show his continued contempt for people who disagree with him and actually have quality points, did I mention who also have more experience, credibilty, blah blah blah.

This thread was garbage and you are a follower.

Tron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 10:51am:

It can hardly be considered improper for a web site to repeatedly ban a person and, when the bans are repeatedly ignored, finally post the person's name.

It is not in violation of any "privacy policy" and is not even in violation of the usual rules of the Internet.   
No one has ever been banned from this board for posting opinions in opposition of the board's founders.  It has never happened.

The same cannot be said for many other boards, including some with a pro-polygraph slant.

I just spent a couple of hours reading Special Agent Hacking's posts. Thank you George Mashke for compiling those into one link for us. Now that I thanked George and gave credit where it is due I must also ask George a question. What in the hell were you thinking? Here's a DEA Special Agent who is also obviously a polygrapher and knows what he is talking about, and you people banned him from coming here and exposed him on a public web site? While I would not agree one hundred percent with anyone's opinion on the polygraph, not even an experienced polygrapher, Agent Hacking's posts are for the most part excellent and they tell a story that can be summed up like this: 

People who have no experience with the polygraph should not be advising other people about it. People who have never even passed a polygraph--is it true that George Mashke really failed every relevant question on the F.B.I. polygraph test?--should not be telling other people to try using countermeasures to pass the test, especially when studies show that it does not work. People who take such advice are fools who probably should not be pursuing careers in law enforcement.

That about sums it up. To be honest the posts get a bit repetitive and it makes one wonder why Agent Hacking didn't just get bored and go away on his own. People like Mashke are not going to get the message Agent Hacking repeatedly delivered because it does not correspond to their own opinions. As Anais Nin said: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." People who failed the polygraph test, whether innocently or not, have a bias. They see the polygraph through their own clouded lens. I have never seen an actual false positive thank God, but since no test is perfect I have to accept that it can happen. What Agent Hacking obviously believes is that the false positive is very rare--which I have to agree with--and people who failed the polygraph test even if they were an actual false positive should not be assuming that it is a common thing and trying to influence the actions of other people.

I have to agree with Tron. The administrators of this web site have shown a complete lack of integrity by exposing anonymous people who disagree with them. Now think about this for a moment. DEA Special Agents are truly special people who often put themselves in dangerous situations while trying to keep drugs out of the hands of stupid people. It is my understanding that all DEA polygraphers began as regular Special Agents and that the position of polygrapher is a specialty within the DEA. If you were a DEA Special Agent, would you not want to remain anonymous on a public web site? Agent Hacking apparently never even once posted that he was a DEA Special Agent, and unless I'm missing something he never even claimed that his viewpoint as a polygrapher was the DEA's official viewpoint. He always wrote anonymously with the expectation that his anonymity would be respected. But when he poked fun at people on an anonymous web site because of their inexperience and said that they amused him and should not be giving out bad advice he was exposed. This is a lack of integrity on the part of the administrator and a betrayal of confidence. For a web site that is supposedly a forum for both sides to discuss and even argue about a subject, this is no way to encourage anyone from the other side to take part in such exchanges. If Mashke wants a one sided web site where he and other people like him can voice a one sided opinion based on nothing but their own negative experiences, then he certainly has that. He and others who failed the polygraph have their own little world in which to agree with each other and mislead others. They won't listen to the voice of experience because that voice doesn't agree with them. As Henry David Thoreau said "It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear."

I commend Special Agent Hacking for his efforts. Not for ridiculing Mashke and others because that is stooping to the level of those who were not worth his time. But for advising people who have to take a polygraph test on the right way to do it. Shame on you George Mashke. Good job Special Agent Hacking.

Without belittling or flaming you let me answer your question even though the answer should have been obvious before you asked the question.  First try to put yourself in Special Agent Hacking's place if you can. You are a polygrapher who has personally witnessed test subjects trying in vain to "beat" the polygraph through the use of ill advised countermeasures advocated by a few people on an internet web site who have not even passed their own polygraphs. Those people on the web site cannot even claim that they have used their own advice to find out if it works. You have counseled test subjects to follow your instructions, which most do and they pass the test. But there are others who are gullible or foolish enough to believe whatever they read without considering the source, and you have repeatedly seen them come into a polygraph test and ignore your instructions and either flat out fail the test or at best fall into the chasm of inconclusive which I talked about in another post. Curious, you go to the web site where some of your test subjects got their bad advice and you soon discover that there is not even one opponent of the polygraph on that web site who has experience conducting polygraph tests or who has any business pretending to be an expert on the subject, yet they are claiming that to pass the polygraph a test subject should use countermeasures which studies and your own experience have shown do not work. So you make a decision to engage in discussions and debates with the opponents of polygraph on the web site so that other readers, some of which will be your own test subjects, will at least have one person offering good advice on the web site who knows what he is talking about. You use an anonymous name and you never mention your employer but only portray yourself as the experienced polygrapher you are. You feel safely anonymous on the web site because the web site states that a person may wish to remain anonymous and you can see that there are many people on the web site who choose to do so and use anonymous names themselves.
     Of course whenever you voice an opinion in favor of the polygraph and in opposition to the people on the web site you are ridiculed, flamed and your knowledge and experience is discounted. Correct or not you occasionally stoop to the level of the opposition and you ridicule or flame back, but at least unlike the opposition you have more than just having failed a polygraph test or a handful of biased or insupportable laboratory studies and your own conjecture to support your claims.
     In most of your exchanges with the opposition you win hands down, at least in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about the polygraph or to any unbiased and objective observer. But there is one thing you seriously misjudge about the opposition. You misjudge the opposition's level of integrity. While the opposition is blindly biased against the polygraph and some of them understandably so because they once fell victim to an imperfect test process, you have no reason yet to judge them as lacking in integrity.
     On occasion when you are not conducting polygraph tests you even visit the web site while at work because you still have no reason to doubt the integrity of Mashke or any other web site administrator. You are not (we should assume) sitting on the internet all day viewing porn or playing video games. You are not sitting in your office with the TV on watching the sports review or newscast while you are "supervising" subordinates. You are not engaging in hours of personal telephone calls on company time. You are not off on three hour "business" lunches. What you are doing (and put yourself in the good Agent's shoes if you can) is participating in debates with people who are offering bad advice to many of your own test subjects, and you are providing a voice of reason and experience to those same test subjects. Do you not see that anyone with common sense would consider this an understandable and justifiable part of a well meaning polygrapher's job?
     But since you are getting the best of your opposition day in and day out, the opposition desperately wants to silence you and get back to its one sided business of giving out bad advice and feeding its own feelings of self importance and revenge. Therefor the opposition falls back on what we can all now see as its standard method of operation, which is claiming that any strong voice of opposition is "trolling" the internet, and then banning the "troller." But apparently that is not even enough for the web site administrator. Oh no. The web site administrator feels that the too strong voice of opposition must also be "named and shamed." This "naming and shaming" violates all standards of ethics and integrity of a supposedly anonymous web site claiming to be a forum for two sided discussion, but with the opposing voice "named and shamed" the administrator hopes the opposing voice will never come back again to disrupt the happy little one sided web site. What the administrator perhaps fails to see is that by displaying this lack of integrity he is simply confirming the lack of integrity that is so often proven when a test subject fails a polygraph test. Isn't that incredibly ironic?
     Now I leave you with two quotes which I think accurately portray the actions of the administrator and many other people on this website:

"Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm. But the harm does not interest them."     T.S. Elliot

"He that studieth revenge keepeth his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well."     John Milton

Thank you for your time dear reader.