- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Anthony R
- Oct 29, 2025, 10:48 PMAnd I doubt David ever will. Poly and VSA people are all the same, talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 26, 2025, 12:35 AMQuote from: RobbieG on Oct 24, 2025, 04:07 PMGeorge, you asked David during the interview if he had any evidence to support his assertion that the reliability of digital polygraphs were much improved over analogue equipment. He said he didn't have it handy but would send it to you later. Did he end up doing so?
No, he did not.
Posted by RobbieG
- Oct 24, 2025, 04:07 PMGeorge, you asked David during the interview if he had any evidence to support his assertion that the reliability of digital polygraphs were much improved over analogue equipment. He said he didn't have it handy but would send it to you later. Did he end up doing so?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 01, 2025, 04:12 AMDavid Goldberg has posted a follow-up video to our interview, recorded shortly after it, titled "Truth vs. Skepticism: My Reaction to George Maschke's Claims | @gwmaschke."
I infer from the title that he supposes that he is on the side of truth and that my skepticism somehow is against the truth. The video may be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJl_xp4lak0
Among other things, David states:
This is misleading. David and I do not agree that experienced polygraph examiners are going to catch examinees who use countermeasures. As I mentioned to him during our interview, the federal polygraph school did a study on countermeasures ca. 1995 under the auspices of Dr. Gordon Barland, and what it showed was that with no more than an hour of training, 80% of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/s/cc
I also mentioned that there is nothing in the polygraph literature about how to reliably detect countermeasures. David's claim that "experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures" is without evidence.
David goes on to say:
Here, too, David mischaracterizes my remarks. I did not state that "polygraph examinations do in fact help people" in any general sense. Rather, I conceded that some people who pay for polygraph services are satisfied with the results. I believe that overall, polygraphy does much more harm than good.
Moreover, I don't believe that experienced polygraph operators provide more accurate chart readings than beginners do. There is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion.
David goes on to argue that I was wrong in claiming that federal agencies share polygraph results with each other, arguing that it would be logistically impossible. He seems to be unfamiliar with databases such as Scattered Castles.
He repeats his claim that computerized polygraphs provide "way more" accurate results than analog ones. However, there is no peer-reviewed research that would support this notion.
I infer from the title that he supposes that he is on the side of truth and that my skepticism somehow is against the truth. The video may be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJl_xp4lak0
Among other things, David states:
QuoteWhat he [George Maschke] also got right was, he said, "countermeasures."
Ladies and gentlemen, I have said this before and I'll say it again, that there is countermeasures out there, and people do tend to utilize in order to manipulate and try to beat their polygraph examinations that they go and take. And what I told him, and I agreed with him, that there are manuals, education material out there, on countermeasures, how to do it, how to learn how to do it, however what I said was, experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures, and that's what I agreed with George Maschke.
This is misleading. David and I do not agree that experienced polygraph examiners are going to catch examinees who use countermeasures. As I mentioned to him during our interview, the federal polygraph school did a study on countermeasures ca. 1995 under the auspices of Dr. Gordon Barland, and what it showed was that with no more than an hour of training, 80% of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/s/cc
I also mentioned that there is nothing in the polygraph literature about how to reliably detect countermeasures. David's claim that "experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures" is without evidence.
David goes on to say:
QuoteWhat I also agreed with him, and this is huge, ladies and gentlemen, is, he said that polygraph examinations do in fact help people. I cannot emphasize that enough! Polygraph examinations of all matters, whether it's criminal, whether it's infidelity, whether it's pre-employment, whether it's false allegations, whatever, they in fact help people overcome whatever their issue is, when, and this is what I said, when you seek an experienced, certified examiner, just like myself. And there are not a lot of them out there, so you have to do your due diligence to find one. There are some crappy ones out there that ruin people's lives, and that's where me and George agreed, that people have failed exams that were telling the truth, and people have passed exams that shouldn't have, and I am a perfect witness for that, because people have come in my office who have either failed my exams, and when I've told them they have failed, I ask them "how did you beat that last examiner that you went to?" or vice-versa when they passed mine, I asked "How did you fail that last exam and examiner?" they would tell me, either they did something to try to manipulate that exam or whatever, but they admitted to me what they did, and so I know that you can beat an inexperienced polygraph examiner, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what me and George Maschke discussed about beating the polygraph—not the polygraph instrument, you can beat inexperienced polygraph examiners.
Here, too, David mischaracterizes my remarks. I did not state that "polygraph examinations do in fact help people" in any general sense. Rather, I conceded that some people who pay for polygraph services are satisfied with the results. I believe that overall, polygraphy does much more harm than good.
Moreover, I don't believe that experienced polygraph operators provide more accurate chart readings than beginners do. There is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion.
David goes on to argue that I was wrong in claiming that federal agencies share polygraph results with each other, arguing that it would be logistically impossible. He seems to be unfamiliar with databases such as Scattered Castles.
He repeats his claim that computerized polygraphs provide "way more" accurate results than analog ones. However, there is no peer-reviewed research that would support this notion.
Posted by ME2025
- Jun 30, 2025, 04:17 PMOne more thing, I know that George im aware of this catch22 scenario because he and I discussed it in the chat. It's 'ME' after all.
Posted by ME2025
- Jun 30, 2025, 04:07 PMDavid is full of shit. The info regarding a 'failed' polygraph is shared as an 'incident' report that is put in the person's security clearance record by the agency that suspends the persons access based on the negative polygraph result. When the applicant applies for another job requiring a clearance, the new company or agency security personnel see this flagged incident and say that this incident must be resolved before the person can be employed. The agency that created the incident then states that they will never complete the investigation of the incident, since the person no longer works for them, thus creating a catch22 that the person is stuck with for life. The reason George let this PoS off the hook here is beyond me, and also makes me think he and his site COULD be in on the scam.
Posted by Antony R
- Jun 28, 2025, 02:34 PMGeorge has had at least three legal threats from the demons in the lie industry, the most recent being from "Dr." Humble. George is stepping on some toes. All I can say if I were doing the interview, I would have ripped David a new one. But to each his own
Posted by Don’t Get It
- Jun 27, 2025, 10:20 PMI have no idea why George even created this site. All he does is shill for the polygraph industry, and whenever he has the chance to really drive them into the dirt, all he does is make endless excuses for them and validates them. Not sure what the point is.
Posted by lurker
- Jun 24, 2025, 07:06 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U5VzGjmWNE&t=32m54s
David is wrong. George is right. Feds DO share polygraphs with other feds. It is part of the background investigation when applying for your clearance. It may not be a phone call, as David said, but there are databases and good old fashioned email (encrypted and/or classified) exchanges as well. I know this for a fact. I FOIA/PA'd my clearance file once and it said on there that Agency 2 had verified with Agency 1 my polygraph results. Sorry David, you are wrong here.
David, was so adamant about someone not researching the polygraph, now he has backpedaled.
Here is what I take from all of this:
George and the anti-polygraph community want to help innocent people pass the poly. If guilty people pass, it is acceptable collateral damage.
David and the pro-polygraph community want to catch the bad guys. If innocent people fail, they accept that their collateral damage. The pro-polygraph community does not like to talk about all of the criminals that passed their polys while committing crimes.
In all cases, it proves the polygraph is highly fallible, and it is a game of chance. Nobody's should have to bet their career or lives (yes, lives, in cases of marriage infidelity testing or criminal cases, both of which can ruin your life) on the poly.
Note: I "beat" a federal full-scope poly by a simple method: I relaxed and did not confess to anything. I didn't care what the polygrapher saw on the computer screen or what he/she was interrogating me about. I denied everything, remained calm, and found out later that I passed and got the job.
David is wrong. George is right. Feds DO share polygraphs with other feds. It is part of the background investigation when applying for your clearance. It may not be a phone call, as David said, but there are databases and good old fashioned email (encrypted and/or classified) exchanges as well. I know this for a fact. I FOIA/PA'd my clearance file once and it said on there that Agency 2 had verified with Agency 1 my polygraph results. Sorry David, you are wrong here.
David, was so adamant about someone not researching the polygraph, now he has backpedaled.
Here is what I take from all of this:
George and the anti-polygraph community want to help innocent people pass the poly. If guilty people pass, it is acceptable collateral damage.
David and the pro-polygraph community want to catch the bad guys. If innocent people fail, they accept that their collateral damage. The pro-polygraph community does not like to talk about all of the criminals that passed their polys while committing crimes.
In all cases, it proves the polygraph is highly fallible, and it is a game of chance. Nobody's should have to bet their career or lives (yes, lives, in cases of marriage infidelity testing or criminal cases, both of which can ruin your life) on the poly.
Note: I "beat" a federal full-scope poly by a simple method: I relaxed and did not confess to anything. I didn't care what the polygrapher saw on the computer screen or what he/she was interrogating me about. I denied everything, remained calm, and found out later that I passed and got the job.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 24, 2025, 03:05 AMIn response to my challenge, David Goldberg invited me to speak with him on his podcast, and I accepted his invitation. We spoke on 4 June 2025, and the interview was released on 23 June 2025. Our roughly hour-long conversation addressed a range of topics, including the question I posed in my challenge: why any polygrapher would care whether a person has looked up how to beat a polygraph test.
I didn't find David's response to that particular question to be satisfying, but I nonetheless enjoyed our conversation and hope that others might as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U5VzGjmWNE
I didn't find David's response to that particular question to be satisfying, but I nonetheless enjoyed our conversation and hope that others might as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U5VzGjmWNE
Posted by Tom Richards
- May 30, 2025, 10:45 PMIn regards to being Google's Highest Rated Polygraph Service.
It is becoming well known that a person or company can pay for positive Google Reviews.
These service providers advertise on FIVVER and UPWORK and will create any number of positive Google Reviews and they can appear in any location that person requests.
This is also true for YELP, BING, NEXTDOOR and other websites.
Just mentioning this for the benefit of anyone who makes a purchasing decision based upon a review.
It is becoming well known that a person or company can pay for positive Google Reviews.
These service providers advertise on FIVVER and UPWORK and will create any number of positive Google Reviews and they can appear in any location that person requests.
This is also true for YELP, BING, NEXTDOOR and other websites.
Just mentioning this for the benefit of anyone who makes a purchasing decision based upon a review.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 14, 2025, 01:27 AM
David Goldberg
On Monday, 12 May 2025, David Goldberg, who characterizes himself as an "expert polygraph examiner" and "Google's Highest-Rated Polygraph Examination Service and Examiner in the United States," published to YouTube a video titled "Everything You Need to Know and AVOID For Pre-employment Polygraph Tests! | ITP Podcast."
In this video, Goldberg warns those facing pre-employment polygraph screening against the dangers of learning about polygraph countermeasures (starting at 24:03):
Quotehttps://youtu.be/-eqB4cK-rBA?si=3e6NAYXmwM2YdYrc&t=1443
Number one: Under no circumstances ladies and gentlemen—no circumstances—should you go on to any social media—I'm talkin' about YouTube, or TikTok—and look up how to beat a polygraph test.
I'm gonna repeat that. Under no circumstances should you be looking up how to beat a polygraph test. Number one, ya can't. Number two, if you do, that experienced examiner is going to be asking you just that question: Have you gone online, or have you gone anywhere, and looked up how to beat a polygraph test, or researched anything about a polygraph examination or test, or lie detector?
If you say "no," they're going to find out. If you say "yes," they're going to ask why.
And if you have, ladies and gentlemen, that says a lot about one, your character, because anyone who's looking up how to beat—again, let's talk about that word—you're looking up how to beat a polygraph test. That says a lot about your character.
That means that you're trying to circumvent the upcoming pre-employment polygraph test that you're about to take, and you want to do somethin' that you're not supposed to do.
So my suggestion is—is why would you even think about doing something like that? I wouldn't. I wouldn't under any circumstances.
Now, the podcast that you're watching right now? That's perfectly fine. Because I'm not tellin' ya how to beat a polygraph test. I'm not tellin' you any tricks of the trade or how to circumvent your pre-employment polygraph test. So if they ask you, have you seen anything about polygraph tests, or anything, you can easily say, "I have. I watched Inside the Polygraph with David Goldberg, and I just was listening to his podcast about pre-employment." And they can look at it themselves, and there's nothin' that I'm gonna say that is inappropriate, wrong, and they're gonna all say, yep, everything I'm sayin' is absolutely spot-on.
So, I'm just tellin' ya, don't look up how to beat a polygraph test.
Mr. Goldberg, I challenge you to explain why if, as you say, "you can't [beat a polygraph test]," any polygrapher would care whether a person has looked up how to beat a polygraph test?