- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 04, 2008, 10:34 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 03, 2008, 09:16 PMQuoteKeep in mind that this was a screening exam study. By their very nature, screening exams should be designed to make more of those errors in order to reduce the possibility of a false negative. We can recover from one, but not the other. Moreover, reactions in screening exam are (or should be) only considered tentatively positive (meaning you're not done).
So, you are saying that it acceptable that a "screening exam" only be 75% accurate? That it is okay to brand 25% of police applicants liars, knowing that the false positive polygraph result will follow them throughout your carreer?
And you declare that you are a Man of God?
"A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Posted by Barry_C
- Jan 03, 2008, 09:16 PMQuoteAccuracy rates from laboratory studies with volunteers committing mock crimes and being polygraphed in the absence of jeopardy, such as the 2007 study by Honts and Amato to which you refer, cannot be expected to generalize to field conditions, where examinees face potentially severe consequences for being (rightly or wrongly) deemed deceptive.
How do you know that? Your answer implies you have discovered the construct so oft debated by polygraph opponents. You can't have it both ways. Even the NAS only found a 1% difference between lab and field studies. I've never crunched the numbers, but I'd venture a guess there's no statistical significance between those stats. Others have shown that argument to be bogus as well, but since the NAS is so oft venerated here, I'll leave it at that.
QuoteBut in any event, in the Honts & Amato study, only 63% of innocent examinees were correctly judged truthful by human examiners, while with automation, 76% of innocent examinees were judged innocent. In both cases, a substantial percentage of innocent examinees failed to pass. Under field conditions, one would expect even worse results.
Keep in mind that this was a screening exam study. By their very nature, screening exams should be designed to make more of those errors in order to reduce the possibility of a false negative. We can recover from one, but not the other. Moreover, reactions in screening exam are (or should be) only considered tentatively positive (meaning you're not done).
Posted by ecchasta
- Jan 01, 2008, 02:32 PMIt looks to me like George wins the debate again. Next thread please.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 01, 2008, 02:25 PMBy the way, It appears that EJohnson is STILL waiting for YOU to respond to a question he asked you December 21st.
Sancho Panza
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Jan 01, 2008, 01:57 PMDrew Richardson,
Respond to what?
I have already provided quotes from two official investigations regarding the Aldrich Ames case that stand by themselves. They are accurate quotes and I have not misrepresented the conclusions of the investigative bodies.
I provided a direct quote regarding the Griebl Case from the very document Mr. Mashke posted on his website. It too stands for itself. It is accurate, all I did was cut and paste the quote. Oh and Mr., Mashke forgot to tell us that Griebl passed on the question about having breakfast too.
In both investigations, following polygraph examinations, the investigators were told the traitors were lying. In both investigations the investigators failed to give weight to the information they were given by the polygraphers that the traitors were lying. The result of both sets of investigators failure to listen to the polygraphers was continued traitorous acts by the very persons the polygraphers said were lying.
As to the other spies he said passed their polygraph, I took the time to follow the links he provided and learned that Mr. Mashke was attempting to use his own previous statements in an attempt to verify the accuracy of his most recent statements. That doesn't count as supporting documentation in my book. Neither does the for-profit ramblings of reporters, who seem to rely too much on "Unnamed sources" If he can provide substantive documentation, I assure you I will read it (probably more thoroughly than Mr. Mashke) and respond as I feel inclined.
As to his rant in the Sex Offender section; that's all that is, just rant. It offers no information refuting the post to which he is making a response. He isn't responding at all, just stating an opinion.
Do you really think I need to remind or inform the members of this forum that I disagree with his opinion of Polygraph? Did you think I would be shocked or surprised at the news you agree with him?
As to your criticism that I somehow failed to respond to his post; both of you have failed to respond to points made and questions from my previous posts. Mr. Mashke chooses instead to proselytize his anti-polygraph, vengeance based Mantra while you rally to his defense like a JV cheerleader trying to make the Varsity Squad.
Do you really think he needs that much help stomping his sour grapes?
Do you believe that he 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?
Based on everything you know about Mr. Mashke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not?
Think about it and be truthful.
Sancho Panza
P.S. as to your comment that I made an unsupported and irrelevant assertion I will respond as follows.
Motive is never irrelevant and support for this assertion appears in the personal statement of Mr. Mashke that appears on this web site, although I find it conspicuously absent from the forward of his book, which in my opinion is further evidence of THE LIE BEHIND The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, as a lie of omission.
(modified to respond to DR's comment regarding my assertion)
s.p.
Respond to what?
I have already provided quotes from two official investigations regarding the Aldrich Ames case that stand by themselves. They are accurate quotes and I have not misrepresented the conclusions of the investigative bodies.
I provided a direct quote regarding the Griebl Case from the very document Mr. Mashke posted on his website. It too stands for itself. It is accurate, all I did was cut and paste the quote. Oh and Mr., Mashke forgot to tell us that Griebl passed on the question about having breakfast too.
In both investigations, following polygraph examinations, the investigators were told the traitors were lying. In both investigations the investigators failed to give weight to the information they were given by the polygraphers that the traitors were lying. The result of both sets of investigators failure to listen to the polygraphers was continued traitorous acts by the very persons the polygraphers said were lying.
As to the other spies he said passed their polygraph, I took the time to follow the links he provided and learned that Mr. Mashke was attempting to use his own previous statements in an attempt to verify the accuracy of his most recent statements. That doesn't count as supporting documentation in my book. Neither does the for-profit ramblings of reporters, who seem to rely too much on "Unnamed sources" If he can provide substantive documentation, I assure you I will read it (probably more thoroughly than Mr. Mashke) and respond as I feel inclined.
As to his rant in the Sex Offender section; that's all that is, just rant. It offers no information refuting the post to which he is making a response. He isn't responding at all, just stating an opinion.
Do you really think I need to remind or inform the members of this forum that I disagree with his opinion of Polygraph? Did you think I would be shocked or surprised at the news you agree with him?
As to your criticism that I somehow failed to respond to his post; both of you have failed to respond to points made and questions from my previous posts. Mr. Mashke chooses instead to proselytize his anti-polygraph, vengeance based Mantra while you rally to his defense like a JV cheerleader trying to make the Varsity Squad.
Do you really think he needs that much help stomping his sour grapes?
Do you believe that he 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?
Based on everything you know about Mr. Mashke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not?
Think about it and be truthful.
Sancho Panza
P.S. as to your comment that I made an unsupported and irrelevant assertion I will respond as follows.
Motive is never irrelevant and support for this assertion appears in the personal statement of Mr. Mashke that appears on this web site, although I find it conspicuously absent from the forward of his book, which in my opinion is further evidence of THE LIE BEHIND The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, as a lie of omission.
(modified to respond to DR's comment regarding my assertion)
s.p.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jan 01, 2008, 12:35 PMSancho Panza,
Although (as you indicated) you repeated Dr. Maschke's expletive (and further added an unsupported and irrelevant assertion), I don't see that you addressed any of the points he made in his two previous postings (one to each of two different threads). I would agree with the points he made in those two postings. Which would you disagree with? Regards...
Although (as you indicated) you repeated Dr. Maschke's expletive (and further added an unsupported and irrelevant assertion), I don't see that you addressed any of the points he made in his two previous postings (one to each of two different threads). I would agree with the points he made in those two postings. Which would you disagree with? Regards...
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 31, 2007, 06:43 PMMr. Mashke While I have long maintained that profanity is the refuge of the weak minded, please allow me to borrow your expletive.
BULLSHIT YOURSELF. If you had somehow passed your polygraph all those years ago, THIS SITE WOULD NOT EXIST and the Federal government would be stuck with you. That is the REAL TRUTH behind the lie behind the lie detector.
You are no crusader. You just lack the ability to stop stomping your sour grapes.
Sancho Panza
BULLSHIT YOURSELF. If you had somehow passed your polygraph all those years ago, THIS SITE WOULD NOT EXIST and the Federal government would be stuck with you. That is the REAL TRUTH behind the lie behind the lie detector.
You are no crusader. You just lack the ability to stop stomping your sour grapes.
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 31, 2007, 02:09 PMQuote from: karasoth on Dec 30, 2007, 09:31 PMI disagree. In the Griebl Case the FBI was given ample information that Griebel had showed deception on his examination and then failed to give it proper weight. That is evident in the record you provided.
Griebl passed the following questions:
QuoteQ.--Are you double-crossing the agents?
A.--No.
Q.--Are you sincere in present efforts to assist Federal agents?
A.--Yes.
I agree with you that the FBI failed to give proper weight to Griebl's polygraph results: they should have given them none at all.
You continue:
QuoteIn the other traitor case, Investigators were again given information regarding his deceptive responses to relevant issues and again chose not to give the information proper weight. The investigators were so worried that the Traitor would find out he was under investigation that they also deliberately withheld information that would have been relevant to any examiner who was trying to determine if he was a spy.
Although Ames (like countless others) had to come back for a second session during the second of his periodic polygraph screening examinations following the commencement of his betrayal of our government, there is no getting around the fact that he did pass it, and the CIA's misplaced reliance on that result facilitated his continued espionage against the United States. According to the SSCI assessment, "The fact that Ames passed his 1991 polygraph caused the CIC investigative team to be less suspicious of him."
If polygraph "testing" really worked, it wouldn't matter whether the polygrapher knew that Ames (among others) was under suspicion. And let us not forget that in the CIA's polygraph jihad that followed Ames' arrest, hundreds of honest employees had their careers pointlessly sidelined. For more on the Ames case, see Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
You write:
QuoteHowever you choose to characterize the document YOU provided or these official records the language is plain. Neither of these traitors beat "Polygraph" they just beat the investigators.
Bullshit. If polygraphic lie detection worked, Griebl should have failed when asked "Are you double-crossing the agents?" and "Are you sincere in present efforts to assist Federal agents?" Rick Ames should have failed both his 1986 and 1991 periodic polygraph screening examinations. The hundreds of CIA employees who wrongly failed their polygraph screening examinations in the aftermath of Ames' arrest should have passed. And the other spies I mentioned earlier (Karel Frantisek Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo, and Jiri Pasovsky) should not have passed.
Polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud that is undermining, not enhancing, national security and public safety. The polygraph community -- which puts its collective self-interest above the national interest -- is not to be trusted, and the results of their bogus "tests" are not to be relied upon for such weighty matters as our national security.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 30, 2007, 09:31 PMI disagree. In the Griebl Case the FBI was given ample information that Griebel had showed deception on his examination and then failed to give it proper weight. That is evident in the record you provided.
In the other traitor case, Investigators were again given information regarding his deceptive responses to relevant issues and again chose not to give the information proper weight. The investigators were so worried that the Traitor would find out he was under investigation that they also deliberately withheld information that would have been relevant to any examiner who was trying to determine if he was a spy.
However you choose to characterize the document YOU provided or these official records the language is plain. Neither of these traitors beat "Polygraph" they just beat the investigators.
Sancho Panza
In the other traitor case, Investigators were again given information regarding his deceptive responses to relevant issues and again chose not to give the information proper weight. The investigators were so worried that the Traitor would find out he was under investigation that they also deliberately withheld information that would have been relevant to any examiner who was trying to determine if he was a spy.
However you choose to characterize the document YOU provided or these official records the language is plain. Neither of these traitors beat "Polygraph" they just beat the investigators.
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 30, 2007, 09:07 PMSancho Panza,
With respect to suspected Nazi spy Ignatz Griebl, the key point is that, according to FBI special agent Leon Turrou, who headed the investigation, Griebl's polygraph results "made us relax all vigilance, all watchfulness over him." Five days later, Griebl fled to Germany. Reliance on polygraph results allowed a suspected spy to escape.
With regard to the Ames case, the fact remains that Ames ultimately passed his CIA polygraph screening examinations despite the fact that he was spying for the Soviet Union/Russia.
With respect to suspected Nazi spy Ignatz Griebl, the key point is that, according to FBI special agent Leon Turrou, who headed the investigation, Griebl's polygraph results "made us relax all vigilance, all watchfulness over him." Five days later, Griebl fled to Germany. Reliance on polygraph results allowed a suspected spy to escape.
With regard to the Ames case, the fact remains that Ames ultimately passed his CIA polygraph screening examinations despite the fact that he was spying for the Soviet Union/Russia.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 30, 2007, 08:36 PMVery Funny Mr. Maschke. You provide 6 names with links and claim that these are the "Other spies documented to have passed the polygraph" Just because you wrote it down somewhere doesn't really count as "documented" proof'
The first link to Griebl links to another place on your web site (as do the others). The really funny thing about the Griebl link is that the finding of the polygraph examiner is as follows "This individual was unusually responsive on the Polygraph. His reac-{225}tions[sic] were so pronounced that it is believed they can be definitely isolated, and for this reason it is believed that the conclusions were unusually reliable. As a result, it is believed that he was deeply involved in the espionage ring and in direct contact with Dr. Pheiffer. It is not believed from the questioning that he personally took Lonkowski over the border. It is believed that his present co-operation with the F.B.I. agents is sincere up to a certain point, but that he is still withholding much information concerning his own complicity in the espionage network."
The other names all lead to YOUR OWN forum posts where you presume or imply that these spies passed their polygraph examinations with nowhere near the substantive support that I provided to you regarding the Traitor I wrote about.
If I may AGAIN quote the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (instead of refer you back to an previously unsupported claim) "the traitor showed consistent deception in his 1986 polygraph regarding whether or not he had been asked to work for a foreign government " and regarding his 1991 polygraph "Deception was indicated, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, he continued to show deception in response to the question." I submit that based on that information alone, the polygraph did not fail and that the failure occurred when those persons responsible for acting on that information failed to give it proper weight.
Unlike yourself, this committee has no reason to be either pro polygraph or anti polygraph. The only axe they had to grind was to nail the agencies, personnel, or processes responsible for the failure to catch the traitor. They had no long standing position or website to validate. They were not trying to justify why they 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.
In other words they weren't trying desperately trying to conceal The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie detector
Sancho Panza
The first link to Griebl links to another place on your web site (as do the others). The really funny thing about the Griebl link is that the finding of the polygraph examiner is as follows "This individual was unusually responsive on the Polygraph. His reac-{225}tions[sic] were so pronounced that it is believed they can be definitely isolated, and for this reason it is believed that the conclusions were unusually reliable. As a result, it is believed that he was deeply involved in the espionage ring and in direct contact with Dr. Pheiffer. It is not believed from the questioning that he personally took Lonkowski over the border. It is believed that his present co-operation with the F.B.I. agents is sincere up to a certain point, but that he is still withholding much information concerning his own complicity in the espionage network."
The other names all lead to YOUR OWN forum posts where you presume or imply that these spies passed their polygraph examinations with nowhere near the substantive support that I provided to you regarding the Traitor I wrote about.
If I may AGAIN quote the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (instead of refer you back to an previously unsupported claim) "the traitor showed consistent deception in his 1986 polygraph regarding whether or not he had been asked to work for a foreign government " and regarding his 1991 polygraph "Deception was indicated, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, he continued to show deception in response to the question." I submit that based on that information alone, the polygraph did not fail and that the failure occurred when those persons responsible for acting on that information failed to give it proper weight.
Unlike yourself, this committee has no reason to be either pro polygraph or anti polygraph. The only axe they had to grind was to nail the agencies, personnel, or processes responsible for the failure to catch the traitor. They had no long standing position or website to validate. They were not trying to justify why they 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.
In other words they weren't trying desperately trying to conceal The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie detector
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 30, 2007, 07:33 PMSancho Panza,
While responsibility for the CIA's failure to deter or detect Aldrich Ames' espionage cannot and should not be laid entirely at the feet of the CIA polygraph division, the Ames case remains a spectacular failure of the polygraph. Ames lied and passed while committing espionage against the United States. Twice. While FBI polygraphers -- armed with 20/20 hindsight following Ames's arrest -- may have been able to review his polygraph charts and find signs of deception in them, the fact remains that Ames passed his CIA polygraph screening examinations. Ames may be the most notorious spy to have fooled the lie detector, but he is not the only one. Other spies documented to have passed the polygraph include:
Accuracy rates from laboratory studies with volunteers committing mock crimes and being polygraphed in the absence of jeopardy, such as the 2007 study by Honts and Amato to which you refer, cannot be expected to generalize to field conditions, where examinees face potentially severe consequences for being (rightly or wrongly) deemed deceptive. But in any event, in the Honts & Amato study, only 63% of innocent examinees were correctly judged truthful by human examiners, while with automation, 76% of innocent examinees were judged innocent. In both cases, a substantial percentage of innocent examinees failed to pass. Under field conditions, one would expect even worse results.
While responsibility for the CIA's failure to deter or detect Aldrich Ames' espionage cannot and should not be laid entirely at the feet of the CIA polygraph division, the Ames case remains a spectacular failure of the polygraph. Ames lied and passed while committing espionage against the United States. Twice. While FBI polygraphers -- armed with 20/20 hindsight following Ames's arrest -- may have been able to review his polygraph charts and find signs of deception in them, the fact remains that Ames passed his CIA polygraph screening examinations. Ames may be the most notorious spy to have fooled the lie detector, but he is not the only one. Other spies documented to have passed the polygraph include:
- Ignatz Theodor Griebl
- Karel Frantisek Koecher
- Larry Wu-tai Chin
- Ana Belen Montes
- Leandro Aragoncillo
- Jiri Pasovsky
Accuracy rates from laboratory studies with volunteers committing mock crimes and being polygraphed in the absence of jeopardy, such as the 2007 study by Honts and Amato to which you refer, cannot be expected to generalize to field conditions, where examinees face potentially severe consequences for being (rightly or wrongly) deemed deceptive. But in any event, in the Honts & Amato study, only 63% of innocent examinees were correctly judged truthful by human examiners, while with automation, 76% of innocent examinees were judged innocent. In both cases, a substantial percentage of innocent examinees failed to pass. Under field conditions, one would expect even worse results.
Posted by yankeedog
- Dec 30, 2007, 07:14 PMSeveral weeks ago Sancho quoted various passages in George and Gino's book that clearly identified sections that encourage dishonestly when seeking a position of trust. George had adamantly maintained and unambiguously asserted he did not encourage deceitfulness and asked for some substantiation. Sancho unquestionably took the time to examine the information and provided more than enough to illustrate that in the free book that George and Gino co-authored and is offered for downloading on this terrorist and child molestation support site, they encouraged the reader in a number of sections of the book to be less than candid. You see George and Gino, it is tremendously important to be entirely honest for the duration of a polygraph examination. Perchance, George, that is why you were incapable of passing a polygraph examination on two occasions? Although George claimed time and again that he was actually honest on his polygraph examinations, there is no credible evidence to suggest that he was in fact absolutely honest. Whether he was or was not truthful is inconsequential. What is, in my estimation critical, is that he was appropriately turned down for a position of trust with the United States Government. Anyone after having been rebuked who would throw an international temper tantrum and would then attempt to make available information to those forces that would harm and murder innocent citizens and the criminal element (murders, rapists, burglars, child molesters) so that they may pursue their desired objective is not fit for a position of trust in the federal government or law enforcement. 
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 30, 2007, 05:40 PMQuoteThis procedure has no scientific basis whatsoever, and large numbers of false positives are to be expected.
Actually, that's not true. Charles Honts, a "pro-polygraph" examiner and research, had always opposed screening exams and the R/I. However, in 2007 he and Susan Amato did a study on automating R/I screening exams, and to his surprise, he found the R/I to work and they encouraged more research. So there is some scientific support for the R/I test. (There are two other good studies out there on R/I screening exams too. I don't recall if the first one was peer-reviewed. The Honts / Amato study appeared in Psychology, Crime and Law.)
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 30, 2007, 07:03 AMQuote from: karasoth on Dec 30, 2007, 05:03 AMSancho Panza,
According to Weiner, Johnston, and Lewis, the questions Ames was asked were the standard questions he and everyone else were always asked, specifically:QuoteHave you divulged any classified information to any unauthorized person? Have you had any unauthorized contact with foreigners? Have you gone to work for the other side? Have you been pitched--that is, approached--by a foreign intelligence service.
Regardless of what information the polygraph examiner did or did not have, there is no doubt that Ames was lying on the first three questions. But neither the polygraph nor its operator was able to discern that. It seems you are suggesting that, had the operator known in advance that the subject would be lying, he or she would have had a much better chance of accurately detecting deception. While that is almost certainly accurate, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for the accuracy of the polygraph.
The final question was actually answered honestly, since Ames had approached the Soviets, not the other way around. But that is only answer the examiner said indicated deception, and after Ames gave his set explanation the conclusion was as follows:QuoteThe polygraph operator deemed Ames forthcoming in all respects, and he called Ames's responses "bright" and "direct."
I don't see how this incident can be seen as anything other than a typical example of the inability of the polygraph to detect deception.
Sergeant, Journalists are not generally the best sources about what goes on inside the nation's alphabet agencies.
Have you read the "Unclassified Abstract of the CIA Inspector General's Report on the Aldrich H Ames Case" or the 1994 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report "An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence", that indicated the traitor showed consistent deception in his 1986 polygraph regarding whether or not he had been asked to work for a foreign government or that a 1993 review of this polygraph by the FBI also raised concerns as to deception dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material?
In his 1991 polygraph where specific information regarding the traitors activities was withheld from the examiner, Deception was indicated, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, he continued to show deception in response to the question. At a follow-up polygraph 4 days later he did in fact show no deception but the new examiner did note that his overall level of responsiveness was down considerably from the prior test. This might have been a red flag to many examiners.
Isn't it odd that both of these investigative bodies that actually had access to ALL of the information and were looking to establish culpability for failure to locate and identify this traitor before he did serious damage; knowing that congress loves to put heads on the chopping block, (well at least anyone's head but their own) failed to find fault with polygraph even though there were some criticisms of the management, coordination, and review structures.
But NO, instead of looking at the whole picture and reviewing authoritative investigative information, let's just be little frogs at the bottom of a well , pick a few isolated phrases that support our position and cite this case as evidence that polygraph doesn't work based on the claims of reporters and traitors.
Sancho Panza