- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 16, 2004, 08:19 AMThe Iraqi fabricator who provided false information that Iraq possessed mobile biological warfare laboratories and was believed in part because he had passed a polygraph "test" has been publicly identified as Major Mohammad Harith. Secretary of State Colin Powell used Harith's bogus information in an attempt to justify the planned invasion of Iraq in a pre-war speech before the United Nations.
Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel disclose Harith's identity in an article titled, "Former CIA director used Pentagon ties to introduce Iraqi defector":
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9165361.htm
Landay and Strobel also document that it was former CIA Director James Woolsey who first brought Major Harith to the Pentagon's attention. Woolsey, a founding member of the Commitee to Liberate Iraq, was a leading advocate of the Iraq war, from which he has personally benefited.
Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel disclose Harith's identity in an article titled, "Former CIA director used Pentagon ties to introduce Iraqi defector":
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9165361.htm
Landay and Strobel also document that it was former CIA Director James Woolsey who first brought Major Harith to the Pentagon's attention. Woolsey, a founding member of the Commitee to Liberate Iraq, was a leading advocate of the Iraq war, from which he has personally benefited.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Jun 06, 2004, 03:33 AMI, for one, can state that countermeasures work. I owe my knowledge of using countermeasures and how successful (translated: undetectable) they are to assholes like you, Mr. You-are-the-BS, because of the "deception indicated" (false positives) your fellow assholes gave me.
Posted by I-SMELL-BS-2
- Jun 05, 2004, 11:30 PMGeorge, I just looked up Maschke. It is defined as excessively elevated or ornate; having or exhibiting self-importance: arrogant; relating to or suggestive of pomp; see asshole.
You are speculating George, plain and simple. You don't know what you are talking about and you have never tried any of the things you advise others to do. You can elevate yourself all you want but you are still just speculating. Speculate = to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence. Also known as BULLSHITING
You are speculating George, plain and simple. You don't know what you are talking about and you have never tried any of the things you advise others to do. You can elevate yourself all you want but you are still just speculating. Speculate = to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence. Also known as BULLSHITING
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 05, 2004, 10:03 PMISBS,
It is true that I have never employed the polygraph countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and that I "failed" two polygraph "tests" (even though I told the truth). Indeed, it was this experience of being falsely accused of deception that inspired me to educate myself about polygraphy.
The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is hardly "speculation." It's based on extensive research of the polygraph literature and is well-annotated with citations that skeptical readers may check for themselves.
The fact that we have made such information publicly available and free is obviously disturbing to you and others in the polygraph community. Paul Menges, who teaches the countermeasures course for polygraphers at DoDPI, has gone so far as to suggest that making such information available to the public should be outlawed. Obviously, he is more than a little concerned about that which you would have readers believe is nothing more than "speculation."
I might add here that the profanity-strewn posts you've been making on this message board, your constant resort to name calling and other ad hominem arguments instead of rational debate, and your general lack of civility toward others do not reflect well upon the polygraph "profession."
It is true that I have never employed the polygraph countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and that I "failed" two polygraph "tests" (even though I told the truth). Indeed, it was this experience of being falsely accused of deception that inspired me to educate myself about polygraphy.
The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is hardly "speculation." It's based on extensive research of the polygraph literature and is well-annotated with citations that skeptical readers may check for themselves.
The fact that we have made such information publicly available and free is obviously disturbing to you and others in the polygraph community. Paul Menges, who teaches the countermeasures course for polygraphers at DoDPI, has gone so far as to suggest that making such information available to the public should be outlawed. Obviously, he is more than a little concerned about that which you would have readers believe is nothing more than "speculation."
I might add here that the profanity-strewn posts you've been making on this message board, your constant resort to name calling and other ad hominem arguments instead of rational debate, and your general lack of civility toward others do not reflect well upon the polygraph "profession."
Posted by I-SMELL-BS-2
- Jun 05, 2004, 07:36 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 05, 2004, 07:23 AMAbe,
I have no way of knowing (or even speculating)
.
Now, now, George why would you say that? All you do is speculate. After all you have never even tried any of the countermeasures you advise others to use. And you have never passed a polygraph test - you have simply failed two of them. All you know how to do is speculate.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 05, 2004, 07:23 AMAbe,
I have no way of knowing (or even speculating) whether the fabricator employed polygraph countermeasures or not, let alone what sort of countermeasures. As for the specific type of polygraph "test" to which the fabricator would have most likely been subjected, I believe it to be some form of probable-lie "control" question "test."
What do you mean by "the advanced [countermeasure] techniques taught by intelligence experts?" I am not familiar with these.
I have no way of knowing (or even speculating) whether the fabricator employed polygraph countermeasures or not, let alone what sort of countermeasures. As for the specific type of polygraph "test" to which the fabricator would have most likely been subjected, I believe it to be some form of probable-lie "control" question "test."
What do you mean by "the advanced [countermeasure] techniques taught by intelligence experts?" I am not familiar with these.
Posted by Abraham
- Jun 05, 2004, 05:44 AMGeorge:
I am interested in this reading. Do you believe that the defector was using the types of countermeasures that you teach in your book or the advanced techniques taught by intelligence experts? If you think they were the type that you teach, which ones do you think he could have used and what specific type of polygraph test would they have given him? I am very interested if these questions concern the person's justification for what they are doing as opposed to what they may have specifically lied about?
Abe
I am interested in this reading. Do you believe that the defector was using the types of countermeasures that you teach in your book or the advanced techniques taught by intelligence experts? If you think they were the type that you teach, which ones do you think he could have used and what specific type of polygraph test would they have given him? I am very interested if these questions concern the person's justification for what they are doing as opposed to what they may have specifically lied about?
Abe
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 29, 2004, 04:20 PMBob Drogin and Greg Miller have written a follow-up article titled, "Iraqi Defector's Tales Bolstered U.S. Case for War" that was publised in the Los Angeles Times on 28 March 2004. The article doesn't mention polygraphs, but adds context to pre-war intelligence on supposed Iraqi mobile bioweapons labs. Note that the defector who is the main subject of this article, an informant for Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst [Federal Intelligence Service] (BND), is not the fabricator who fed bogus information to the DIA and passed a polygraph (who is also mentioned in the article):
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-curveball28mar28,1,1470551,print.story
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-curveball28mar28,1,1470551,print.story
Posted by meangino
- Feb 08, 2004, 08:11 PMThe comment at the end of your post confirms the polygraphers' worst fear--that widespread countermeasure use will render your pseudoscientific equipment obsolete. 
Get in line with other polygraphers and learn a new trade. I understand there are openings in barber school.
Get in line with other polygraphers and learn a new trade. I understand there are openings in barber school.
Posted by Kona
- Feb 08, 2004, 06:09 PMQuote from: Lie Chazer on Feb 08, 2004, 06:30 AMThe lives of 500+ Americans have died in this OEF in Iraq, possibly based on faulty intelligence from someone employing that very techniques you encourage....Sleep well George and you others "cheering" the use of countermeasures!!
Lie Chazer,
You've got to be shitting me. That has got to be one of the most inane, stupid, moronic, ignorant, idiotic statements that I have ever read here on antipolygraph. org.
Let me see if I have this straight......the lives of 500+ brave American fighting men lost in Iraq are possibly George's responsibility because of countermeasures taught and encouraged in TLBTLD, that may have been employed by Iraqi POWs, that may have supplied "faulty intelligence?" Is this the crux of your post? I am at a loss for words, and that doesn't happen too often.
Like Bushido said, your anger is misdirected. Maybe you should be pissed off at our government's utter reliance and faith in this quackery as the holy grail for determining whether a person is telling the truth or not.
I think you owe George an apology.
Kona
Posted by bushido71
- Feb 08, 2004, 06:48 AMLie Chazer,
Your anger seems a bit misplaced and only reinforces the argument that nobody should be relying on the polygraph as a valid source of truth verification.
The person you should really be upset at is the intelligence officer that decided this informant was telling the truth based on the results of a polygraph. You yourself admit that "any examiner will agree" that the poly is not foolproof. So then why would our government rely on the test results as the impetus for war? That borders on pure stupidity.
Your anger seems a bit misplaced and only reinforces the argument that nobody should be relying on the polygraph as a valid source of truth verification.
The person you should really be upset at is the intelligence officer that decided this informant was telling the truth based on the results of a polygraph. You yourself admit that "any examiner will agree" that the poly is not foolproof. So then why would our government rely on the test results as the impetus for war? That borders on pure stupidity.
Posted by Lie Chazer
- Feb 08, 2004, 06:30 AMGeorge,
I wouldn't in the polygraph for "wrongly" accusing you of lying during your exams. Fine...but this is just one more example of the absolute distain I have for you and your "mission" to condone, no even advocate the use of countermeasures (assuming that's how this guy "passed", since the article states he "duped" the polygraph).
The lives of 500+ Americans have died in this OEF in Iraq, possibly based on faulty intelligence from someone employing that very techniques you encourage....Sleep well George and you others "cheering" the use of countermeasures!!
Argue the poloygraph is not fool-proof...any Examiner will agree with you. Argue that you had been wrongly found to be "lying". But see for yourself the dangers and waste of life for your banner waving for countermeasures.
I wouldn't in the polygraph for "wrongly" accusing you of lying during your exams. Fine...but this is just one more example of the absolute distain I have for you and your "mission" to condone, no even advocate the use of countermeasures (assuming that's how this guy "passed", since the article states he "duped" the polygraph).
The lives of 500+ Americans have died in this OEF in Iraq, possibly based on faulty intelligence from someone employing that very techniques you encourage....Sleep well George and you others "cheering" the use of countermeasures!!
Argue the poloygraph is not fool-proof...any Examiner will agree with you. Argue that you had been wrongly found to be "lying". But see for yourself the dangers and waste of life for your banner waving for countermeasures.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 06, 2004, 05:35 AMFalse intelligence information provided by an Iraqi informant that Iraq possessed mobile biological warfare laboratories was believed in part because the source had passed a polygraph "test." The bogus information was used by the Bush Administration in making the case for war, and was cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell in a pre-war speech before the United Nations.
Jonathan S. Landay of the Knight Ritter Washington Bureau reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had doubts about the defector and had speculated that he may have been taught to beat the polygraph. These doubts were, however, ignored. See, "Intelligence officials warned that Iraq WMD information was iffy":
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7886210.htm
And Los Angeles Times correspondents Bob Drogin and Greg Miller report that the bogus information was accepted at CIA in part because the source had "passed" the polygraph:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-tenet6feb06,1,2071029.story?coll=la-home-headlines
This case seems to be yet another example of the tragic consequences of the intelligence community's misplaced faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Jonathan S. Landay of the Knight Ritter Washington Bureau reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had doubts about the defector and had speculated that he may have been taught to beat the polygraph. These doubts were, however, ignored. See, "Intelligence officials warned that Iraq WMD information was iffy":
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7886210.htm
And Los Angeles Times correspondents Bob Drogin and Greg Miller report that the bogus information was accepted at CIA in part because the source had "passed" the polygraph:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-tenet6feb06,1,2071029.story?coll=la-home-headlines
This case seems to be yet another example of the tragic consequences of the intelligence community's misplaced faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy.