- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 17, 2008, 02:46 AM Hi DigitHead,
Thank You for clarifying your specialty and interest in this area in PCSOT testing. My understanding is that the polygraph has helped both probation officers and treatment providers in the containment model of treatment. It seems that nobody claims they can cure these sex offenders, but that they have a good shot statistically of keeping them from acting out again given that they know they will be caught. That is, unless the moderator could in fact assist them in some way. Anyway, the goals of the triangle of treatment are honorable, and it takes a very special person to even want to work with sex offenders in the first place. Most people would want them put away altogether.
In regard to research, I would stipulate that if you can recognize the NAS report as coming from a group that does not like the idea of being monitored at it's core, then I would equally stipulate that DACA may not be the necessary place where actual peer review research be done. I would further ask you to recognize that not all people working at DACA are polygraph examiners, and that many of the research folks come at this from peer related field backgrounds (psycology / psychophysiology).
I believe that a group of such professionals could be found, who are not dependant on employment in the scientific community wherein testing is a requirement for security clearance maintanence. I would further stipulate that it should be both a national and international body derived from those countries who have a current interest in using polygraph so that the study serves to either affirm or detract from that investment. After all, more countries than ever are using the polygraph now.
When you say the futility outweighs the utility, don't you recognized that in the validation of the sex offender's sex crime history that new victims are discovered who derive the benefit of social services to deal with their victimization ?
In regard to your advocating the guilty knowlege test, it certainly has it's place. I can not however be used in all cases, and particularly where the information has been compromised by media or former police questioning. It is a great method, but limited in opportunity to apply it.
Thank you for your acknowledgement of Meta-Analysis in this case; which does not by that method rise to the level of what the moderator has claimed it to be as true Peer review. It would seem that from whatever angle one looks at this issue, all parties agree that more research by the proper unbiased researchers is welcomed.
Thank You for clarifying your specialty and interest in this area in PCSOT testing. My understanding is that the polygraph has helped both probation officers and treatment providers in the containment model of treatment. It seems that nobody claims they can cure these sex offenders, but that they have a good shot statistically of keeping them from acting out again given that they know they will be caught. That is, unless the moderator could in fact assist them in some way. Anyway, the goals of the triangle of treatment are honorable, and it takes a very special person to even want to work with sex offenders in the first place. Most people would want them put away altogether.
In regard to research, I would stipulate that if you can recognize the NAS report as coming from a group that does not like the idea of being monitored at it's core, then I would equally stipulate that DACA may not be the necessary place where actual peer review research be done. I would further ask you to recognize that not all people working at DACA are polygraph examiners, and that many of the research folks come at this from peer related field backgrounds (psycology / psychophysiology).
I believe that a group of such professionals could be found, who are not dependant on employment in the scientific community wherein testing is a requirement for security clearance maintanence. I would further stipulate that it should be both a national and international body derived from those countries who have a current interest in using polygraph so that the study serves to either affirm or detract from that investment. After all, more countries than ever are using the polygraph now.
When you say the futility outweighs the utility, don't you recognized that in the validation of the sex offender's sex crime history that new victims are discovered who derive the benefit of social services to deal with their victimization ?
In regard to your advocating the guilty knowlege test, it certainly has it's place. I can not however be used in all cases, and particularly where the information has been compromised by media or former police questioning. It is a great method, but limited in opportunity to apply it.
Thank you for your acknowledgement of Meta-Analysis in this case; which does not by that method rise to the level of what the moderator has claimed it to be as true Peer review. It would seem that from whatever angle one looks at this issue, all parties agree that more research by the proper unbiased researchers is welcomed.
Posted by yankeedog
- Mar 16, 2008, 06:49 PMQuote
There is a better test, it's call the guilty knowledge test. Why don't you guys use it instead?
The Concealed Information Test (CIT)/Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) should be used in place of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) whenever possible. D'head, your comment would seem to suggest that it is not used even though it is as readily available and permits its use as frequently as the CQT. I wish that were the case. That certainly is not the case and should not be portrayed as such. I suspect most examiners would prefer the CIT over the CQT for a number of reasons. Ease in administration, time, and mathematical calculations of probability of error are three that come to mind. The fact of the matter is that we live in a free and open society. As such, we (law enforcement) have this asinine belief that we should report specific and known details to the public. Once that information, a great deal of which could have been used for a very effective CIT, is released to the public, or in any other way not kept from disclosure, it can not be effectively used in a CIT. I would much prefer we simply tell the public that a death investigation is underway and no other information will be made available to the public. But, that is not going to happen. CITs can be great if used early on during an investigation before information is made public.
Posted by digithead
- Mar 16, 2008, 05:37 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Mar 16, 2008, 01:23 AM Hi Digithead,I'm not emotional about anything. I've never taken a polygraph, I'm merely a criminal justice researcher who examines and evaluates sex offender supervision techniques. My interest in the polygraph arose from that and the bulk of research that I've read indicates to me that there is both utility (i.e. bogus pipeline) and futility (i.e. the base rate problem and low specificity) in CQT polygraph testing. I've also come to the conclusion that the futility outweighs the utility. I do, however, believe that testing grounded in cognition such as the GKT/concealed information testing has promise and would not only be utile but useful in PCSOT.
Everybody needs a day off or two, and I took mine. I was however quite surprised to see your posting here. Your position on the NAS report would appear to be one charged with emotion coupled with the best information you know.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 16, 2008, 01:23 AMNot that it matters to you but a literature review is research. I would also call their efforts a meta-analysis. One needn't do statistical analyses to do meta-analysis...
However, can we both agree that since the NAS scientists DID NOT do any of their own research, can we really cotinue to call it peer review ? I think it is rather more a book report at best with bias given that their very community is subject to these very tests for their current or prior jobs.
Additionally, the NAS committee was tasked to review the research on the polygraph and reach a conclusion from the currect state of research. As a polygrapher, your efforts to undermine their conclusions by calling them biased are more emotionally based than anything I've done...
Again, you make the claim that the people on the NAS committee were subject to polygraph testing and you've been provided evidence that none were, are, or will be. Rather than claim bias, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, it's ad hominem and sounds like sour grapes on your part because you don't like their conclusions...
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 16, 2008, 01:23 AMDespite their position, actual real studies are ongoing at DACA by your tax dollars and mine. Progress moves forward, and not the other direction, and so your collective wishing away this computer instrumentation is not consistent with the government meeting it's goals.If you actually read the report, the NAS called for more research into polygraph and lie detection but they, and I think correctly, called for the research to be performed by those without any vested interest in polygraphy. The DACA hardly qualify as a body without any vested interest in polygraphy as they make their living from it. If you think the NAS is biased, do you really believe that the DACA are unbiased?
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 16, 2008, 01:23 AM Again, when some new tool comes along that does it better, such sales will be made.There is a better test, it's call the guilty knowledge test. Why don't you guys use it instead?
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 16, 2008, 01:23 AM The world is not always like Burger King where you get to "Have it Your Way" !!!! Do I really need to repeate the false sense of entitlement thing again ?To quote the late Richard Feynman: "Reality should take precedence over public relations because Nature cannot be fooled."
Regards...
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 16, 2008, 01:23 AM Hi Digithead,
Everybody needs a day off or two, and I took mine. I was however quite surprised to see your posting here. Your position on the NAS report would appear to be one charged with emotion coupled with the best information you know. However, can we both agree that since the NAS scientists DID NOT do any of their own research, can we really cotinue to call it peer review ? I think it is rather more a book report at best with bias given that their very community is subject to these very tests for their current or prior jobs. Despite their position, actual real studies are ongoing at DACA by your tax dollars and mine. Progress moves forward, and not the other direction, and so your collective wishing away this computer instrumentation is not consistent with the government meeting it's goals. Again, when some new tool comes along that does it better, such sales will be made. The world is not always like Burger King where you get to "Have it Your Way" !!!! Do I really need to repeate the false sense of entitlement thing again ?
Everybody needs a day off or two, and I took mine. I was however quite surprised to see your posting here. Your position on the NAS report would appear to be one charged with emotion coupled with the best information you know. However, can we both agree that since the NAS scientists DID NOT do any of their own research, can we really cotinue to call it peer review ? I think it is rather more a book report at best with bias given that their very community is subject to these very tests for their current or prior jobs. Despite their position, actual real studies are ongoing at DACA by your tax dollars and mine. Progress moves forward, and not the other direction, and so your collective wishing away this computer instrumentation is not consistent with the government meeting it's goals. Again, when some new tool comes along that does it better, such sales will be made. The world is not always like Burger King where you get to "Have it Your Way" !!!! Do I really need to repeate the false sense of entitlement thing again ?
Posted by digithead
- Mar 10, 2008, 10:57 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Mar 10, 2008, 02:38 PM Snip...
My point, is that the NAS, as a self appointed body, was NOT the peer review study it claims to be, and rather PhD Psychophysiologist researchers (Non-Polygraph People) are the proper group to have performed such research and/or peer review. NAS was Not free of bias.
...snip
FYI, one of the NAS report committee members, John Cacioppa, a psych professor at the University of Chicago, wrote something called The Handbook of Psychophysiology. Doesn't polygraph fall in that category? Perhaps you have a copy of it? It's in its third edition...
Another member, John Blascovich, a psych professor at UC-Santa Barbara, lists psychophysiology as one of his main research interests. From his publications listed on the UCSB website, it seems most of it centers around cardiovascular responses to psychological stimuli. Isn't that one of the channels measured by the polygraph?
And yet another member, Richard Davidson, a psych professor at Wisconsin-Madison, researches psychophysiological response to emotional stimuli. Isn't that one of the bases of CQT polygraph?
Then there are those non-psychophysiological people they had on the committee: statisticians, mathematicians, engineers, and gasp, lawyers. It's always the lawyers, isn't it?
And what peer review? The NAS committee had the audacity to only send their report to no less than 17 outside academics and researchers for their comments. Seventeen reviewers renowned in their respective fields. Geez, the last thing I sent in for peer review only had 2 reviewers and they were anonymous. Why'd the NAS even bother?
And further, only one of those worked at a national lab, Sally Keller-McNulty. Real hellraiser that one, heads up the Statistical Sciences Group at Sandia National Labs, former president and Fellow of the American Statistical Association, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, surely she must have biased the NAS report, right?
But it's really all those uppity Ph.D.'s with their beliefs in and adherence to scientific rigor that stick in your craw, right?
Anyhow, given your strong and demonstrably false assertions that there is bias in the NAS report, George must be shaking in his boots at your efforts to have him indicted and extradited back to the US for his efforts in summarizing the existing research on the polygraph into one book...
Btw, the research in George's book is available to anyone with internet access and a library card. I'm sure the U.S. Attorney's Office is convening a grand jury as we speak...
Regards...
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 10, 2008, 02:51 PMWhat "documented efffectiveness" are you referring to?
"Occasional" false positive?
...it is reasonable to expect even with optimistic assessments of polygraph test accuracy that each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive NAS Report
You quote from the NAS report as if it were a bible. I have made clear to GM the moderator as to why the NAS report is NOT a peer review study free of bias. I do not accept the variable in their equation that Hundred would be labeled for each correct hit. !!!
How does it help the national security by relying on an UNRELIABLE process?
Accuracy is composed of both Reliability + other factors. That the polygraph is spoken of by you and disdained by your personal dissapointment, or that of others; in that is is Not 100% is not reason enough for you to say get rid of it. Neither Medicine, Aviation, or your own driving is 100% perfect 100% of the time. In the year 2008, it IS the best we have, and fine minds continue to improve it as is the case for the other examples, except maybe your driving.
First step is to focus on the real "bad guys", and spend less time trying to defend a process that routinely eliminates honest, qualified, patriotic people, while at the same time let's people like Aldrich Ames sail through!
First, you can not offer up WHO the bad guys are, or offer a BETTER test to identfy same. Until YOU can, the government will work with the best tools it has. I have never understood why posters here think that your concerns about the processes have not been looked at, funded for same research, or debated; has ever taken place in government by both sides of the aisle. It is you who assume the variable of ignorance upon government, and that ONLY you know the Truth about these subjects. I think that is something a kin to a Cult-esque belief system, as ONLY your group has ever debated these things before. Surprise !!!, such debate and progress has been taking place before you were even born.
"Occasional" false positive?
...it is reasonable to expect even with optimistic assessments of polygraph test accuracy that each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive NAS Report
You quote from the NAS report as if it were a bible. I have made clear to GM the moderator as to why the NAS report is NOT a peer review study free of bias. I do not accept the variable in their equation that Hundred would be labeled for each correct hit. !!!
How does it help the national security by relying on an UNRELIABLE process?
Accuracy is composed of both Reliability + other factors. That the polygraph is spoken of by you and disdained by your personal dissapointment, or that of others; in that is is Not 100% is not reason enough for you to say get rid of it. Neither Medicine, Aviation, or your own driving is 100% perfect 100% of the time. In the year 2008, it IS the best we have, and fine minds continue to improve it as is the case for the other examples, except maybe your driving.
First step is to focus on the real "bad guys", and spend less time trying to defend a process that routinely eliminates honest, qualified, patriotic people, while at the same time let's people like Aldrich Ames sail through!
First, you can not offer up WHO the bad guys are, or offer a BETTER test to identfy same. Until YOU can, the government will work with the best tools it has. I have never understood why posters here think that your concerns about the processes have not been looked at, funded for same research, or debated; has ever taken place in government by both sides of the aisle. It is you who assume the variable of ignorance upon government, and that ONLY you know the Truth about these subjects. I think that is something a kin to a Cult-esque belief system, as ONLY your group has ever debated these things before. Surprise !!!, such debate and progress has been taking place before you were even born.
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 10, 2008, 02:38 PM George,
In response:
I said "Sorry George, you CAN'T have it both ways, even the press knows that in time of war there are limits on the first amendment."
No, there aren't. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a "wartime version" of the 1st Amendment, which simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
My reply: Take note George, in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 over a thousand persons like you have been convicted, not to mention succeeding acts that followed thereafter in WWII, Korea, Etc.. With national approval, our war time Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, at the outset of the war on terrorism, asked television network executives to refrain from airing video releases from Osama bin Laden fearing coded messages to his followers. Even front line reporters routinely face access restrictions and daily Pentagon briefings rarely answer all press questions. Do such restrictions violate First Amendment values or do they hold legitimate national security purposes? You, from foreign soil, and in the company of those who are in fact radical Islamists with whom you associate, do not have our nation's BEST interests at heart. The first amendment is best served who put the nation first as a patriot before their own selfish ambition or in your case tunnel vision revenge.
Polygraph is an undisputed tool of the intelligence community. It is protected by several acts of legislation regarding export, training, etc.; and you as a former Intelligence Officer knew this at all times. Your mere desire to participate in a debate about it's accuracy and utility might be one thing if done here on U.S. Soil, but rather you have attempted to directly compromise it from abroad for the benefit of our nation's internal criminals and/or enemies, and are among the very few with the technical capability to translate it to the language of our enemies. Therefore, your attempt to hide behind the first amendment should not be honored by anyone other than the most left wing of Judges; but I grant that you are entitled to a jury of your peers and your day in court. Merely saying you were trying to "Help" someone is not a defense from the above, as in reality someone of your life experience an education knows that there is / was both a spirit to the oath you took and document(s) you signed about the special role of having been an Intelligence Officer.
I believe a Federal prosecutor, whether they be from the military or Justice Dept. or both separately in your case, should convene no less than an investigative body in regard to your activity to determine not only the effect of it, but the proper punishment for the attempt.
Is it not yet clear to you that the intelligence community, of which the polygraph is a long standing contributing member, has not been paralyzed by you attempting to compromise the control / comparison questions. Despite your banter they have never needed more talent, and the federal school is booked eighteen months in advance with Federal agencies actually competing for seats in it to get such talent.
You have at your worst become the Patron Saint of Pedophiles, or a brain bar of sorts for those who had an artificial sense of false expectations about receiving a letter of contingency offer of hire vs. a bona fide offer of hire. As the bible says, many are called, but few are chosen. Your flock, the unchosen, wallow in their pitty claiming we are somehow lessened by their not being called upon or chosen. Wisdom on yours and their parts would rather dictate that you need to go to plan B or C ( or in your case plan H for Holland) and do something else positive with your life. You "Aniti's" are a real downer to read here.
I Said "If a nexus can be made that Al Quada used your work as a reference point, and your intent or result (despite the hollow platitudes of only trying to Help) was to hurt, cripple, maim, lessen, or effect U.S. Intelligence (National or International) then you get body slammed. I have made my position clear that you are no less than in the same catagory of the very people whom you claimed evaded U.S. Intelligence via Aldrich Ames and others, but they did so for money. Your betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations."
So you actually believe that by publicly telling the truth about polygraphy I have committed treason? And am I to understand that you would be pleased to see me executed for my "speech crime?" Was it not you who not so long ago lectured me:
I've been very clear that you are entitled to a jury of your peers for whatever charges a federal prosecutor, or UCMJ military prosecutor, may deem fit for you. As you have NOT been fit in honoring your obligation to the intelligence community. At the very least, I would like to see you forfeit your claim to a military pension for twenty years in the reserves based on your attempted damages inflicted on the intelligence community. Sedition, treason, espionage are for Judges, Jurys, and court rooms, as I alone am not fit to make that call and bend to the system for that. I only call'em as I see'em at the sidelines, and apparantly am not alone.
I said before "Guys like you want to ban guys like me and throw out Freedom of expression, Freedom of the press, etc. Guys like me have spent a career sworn to uphold that constitution and its rights for the individual"
This was in response to a poster who asked you to ban me from this site for my minority opinion alone. My desire to be heard here for my contribution is NOT the equal of YOUR acting from foreign soil in assitance to those who would use your sight to, at the very least, cheat the system, and at worst aid an abett he enemies of the USA, a topic you have covered in the Al Queda piece. By the way, I was not lecturing you on this, but rather a common poster on this. Get YOUR ego out of it. It wasn't written TO you, but rather was ABOUT such a site, and it's fair role if moderated fairly.
Actually, the NAS review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph has much in common with the process of peer-review for a scientific journal. It is a critical review by experts with a variety of relevant expertise who had no vested interest in the outcome.
WHAT
Ofcourse they, and their scientific breatheran had a vested interest in the outcome !!!! They, as a group, don't want ANY accountability as the arrogance of their PhD's makes them feel above it all.
Again, none of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening. They were nominated to the panel based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. Their names were published on-line in advance, and members of the public were given the opportunity to object to any of the nominees. I am not aware that any objections were raised with regard to any of the panel members.
I accept your point that while the NAS study was going on those panel members were not subject to polygraph at that time. However, they, their PhD breatheran, are of a pre-disposed mindset that they are above accountability and want to avoid that reality. That they find the polygraph to be less than 100% is not a surprise to even the pro-polygraph people who accept different rates of accuracy for different types of testing. The only science which IS 100% is Mathamatics. You start from a false premise that it MUST be 100% accurate to be used, and clearly underestimate it's value by saying it is at not much better than chance levels, as their are too many mathamatical hand scored charts to argue that point. Far too much has been made of false positives and/or false negatives on this site when compared to the totality of the whole body of work as a collective contribution, in an attempt to disregard the role and mission of the polygraph professionals. My point, is that the NAS, as a self appointed body, was NOT the peer review study it claims to be, and rather PhD Psychophysiologist researchers (Non-Polygraph People) are the proper group to have performed such research and/or peer review. NAS was Not free of bias.
Would you be an example of the "best and brightest" chosen for polygraph school?
I have NOT held myself up to you as being selected by any government agency as being such or sent by them to a polygraph school. Only that I have worked in an associated community. I do however in fairness to you claim bias in that I have seen the real world results of both polygraph testing vs. non-testing in applicant screening. Also, the advances of the computerized testing being done being far better than the analog test to which you were subjected to. Also, that the fine professionals in this field like Trimarco and Youngblood all seem to have made incredible contributions to their country or community respectively, whereas you sit on the side lines in another nation bitching about how George did not get to play on the first string team. But No, you instead went accross the field and have acted as an advisor to the OTHER team in regard to your former team mates play book. That action doesn't work as fair play in sports, the intelligence community, or in life. One one thing we can all agree, your actions here, disclosures, and attitude is that of one who is clearly an unfulfilled human being with an irrational fictitious theme of Man vs. Machine, and you now want revenge. That you cloak that effort in a claim of ideological debate as an academic exists only in your mind, and others do in fact see through it.
By the way, only those who are fools debate the innocense of the Rosenbergs and how they betrayed this country for their communist / world socialist beliefs; not unlike those who to this day believe Ojay didn't do it. Such minds of mush are not the material intelligence services and law enforcement are composed of. Thank God !!!
In response:
I said "Sorry George, you CAN'T have it both ways, even the press knows that in time of war there are limits on the first amendment."
No, there aren't. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a "wartime version" of the 1st Amendment, which simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
My reply: Take note George, in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 over a thousand persons like you have been convicted, not to mention succeeding acts that followed thereafter in WWII, Korea, Etc.. With national approval, our war time Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, at the outset of the war on terrorism, asked television network executives to refrain from airing video releases from Osama bin Laden fearing coded messages to his followers. Even front line reporters routinely face access restrictions and daily Pentagon briefings rarely answer all press questions. Do such restrictions violate First Amendment values or do they hold legitimate national security purposes? You, from foreign soil, and in the company of those who are in fact radical Islamists with whom you associate, do not have our nation's BEST interests at heart. The first amendment is best served who put the nation first as a patriot before their own selfish ambition or in your case tunnel vision revenge.
Polygraph is an undisputed tool of the intelligence community. It is protected by several acts of legislation regarding export, training, etc.; and you as a former Intelligence Officer knew this at all times. Your mere desire to participate in a debate about it's accuracy and utility might be one thing if done here on U.S. Soil, but rather you have attempted to directly compromise it from abroad for the benefit of our nation's internal criminals and/or enemies, and are among the very few with the technical capability to translate it to the language of our enemies. Therefore, your attempt to hide behind the first amendment should not be honored by anyone other than the most left wing of Judges; but I grant that you are entitled to a jury of your peers and your day in court. Merely saying you were trying to "Help" someone is not a defense from the above, as in reality someone of your life experience an education knows that there is / was both a spirit to the oath you took and document(s) you signed about the special role of having been an Intelligence Officer.
I believe a Federal prosecutor, whether they be from the military or Justice Dept. or both separately in your case, should convene no less than an investigative body in regard to your activity to determine not only the effect of it, but the proper punishment for the attempt.
Is it not yet clear to you that the intelligence community, of which the polygraph is a long standing contributing member, has not been paralyzed by you attempting to compromise the control / comparison questions. Despite your banter they have never needed more talent, and the federal school is booked eighteen months in advance with Federal agencies actually competing for seats in it to get such talent.
You have at your worst become the Patron Saint of Pedophiles, or a brain bar of sorts for those who had an artificial sense of false expectations about receiving a letter of contingency offer of hire vs. a bona fide offer of hire. As the bible says, many are called, but few are chosen. Your flock, the unchosen, wallow in their pitty claiming we are somehow lessened by their not being called upon or chosen. Wisdom on yours and their parts would rather dictate that you need to go to plan B or C ( or in your case plan H for Holland) and do something else positive with your life. You "Aniti's" are a real downer to read here.
I Said "If a nexus can be made that Al Quada used your work as a reference point, and your intent or result (despite the hollow platitudes of only trying to Help) was to hurt, cripple, maim, lessen, or effect U.S. Intelligence (National or International) then you get body slammed. I have made my position clear that you are no less than in the same catagory of the very people whom you claimed evaded U.S. Intelligence via Aldrich Ames and others, but they did so for money. Your betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations."
So you actually believe that by publicly telling the truth about polygraphy I have committed treason? And am I to understand that you would be pleased to see me executed for my "speech crime?" Was it not you who not so long ago lectured me:
I've been very clear that you are entitled to a jury of your peers for whatever charges a federal prosecutor, or UCMJ military prosecutor, may deem fit for you. As you have NOT been fit in honoring your obligation to the intelligence community. At the very least, I would like to see you forfeit your claim to a military pension for twenty years in the reserves based on your attempted damages inflicted on the intelligence community. Sedition, treason, espionage are for Judges, Jurys, and court rooms, as I alone am not fit to make that call and bend to the system for that. I only call'em as I see'em at the sidelines, and apparantly am not alone.
I said before "Guys like you want to ban guys like me and throw out Freedom of expression, Freedom of the press, etc. Guys like me have spent a career sworn to uphold that constitution and its rights for the individual"
This was in response to a poster who asked you to ban me from this site for my minority opinion alone. My desire to be heard here for my contribution is NOT the equal of YOUR acting from foreign soil in assitance to those who would use your sight to, at the very least, cheat the system, and at worst aid an abett he enemies of the USA, a topic you have covered in the Al Queda piece. By the way, I was not lecturing you on this, but rather a common poster on this. Get YOUR ego out of it. It wasn't written TO you, but rather was ABOUT such a site, and it's fair role if moderated fairly.
Actually, the NAS review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph has much in common with the process of peer-review for a scientific journal. It is a critical review by experts with a variety of relevant expertise who had no vested interest in the outcome.
WHAT
Ofcourse they, and their scientific breatheran had a vested interest in the outcome !!!! They, as a group, don't want ANY accountability as the arrogance of their PhD's makes them feel above it all. Again, none of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening. They were nominated to the panel based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. Their names were published on-line in advance, and members of the public were given the opportunity to object to any of the nominees. I am not aware that any objections were raised with regard to any of the panel members.
I accept your point that while the NAS study was going on those panel members were not subject to polygraph at that time. However, they, their PhD breatheran, are of a pre-disposed mindset that they are above accountability and want to avoid that reality. That they find the polygraph to be less than 100% is not a surprise to even the pro-polygraph people who accept different rates of accuracy for different types of testing. The only science which IS 100% is Mathamatics. You start from a false premise that it MUST be 100% accurate to be used, and clearly underestimate it's value by saying it is at not much better than chance levels, as their are too many mathamatical hand scored charts to argue that point. Far too much has been made of false positives and/or false negatives on this site when compared to the totality of the whole body of work as a collective contribution, in an attempt to disregard the role and mission of the polygraph professionals. My point, is that the NAS, as a self appointed body, was NOT the peer review study it claims to be, and rather PhD Psychophysiologist researchers (Non-Polygraph People) are the proper group to have performed such research and/or peer review. NAS was Not free of bias.
Would you be an example of the "best and brightest" chosen for polygraph school?
I have NOT held myself up to you as being selected by any government agency as being such or sent by them to a polygraph school. Only that I have worked in an associated community. I do however in fairness to you claim bias in that I have seen the real world results of both polygraph testing vs. non-testing in applicant screening. Also, the advances of the computerized testing being done being far better than the analog test to which you were subjected to. Also, that the fine professionals in this field like Trimarco and Youngblood all seem to have made incredible contributions to their country or community respectively, whereas you sit on the side lines in another nation bitching about how George did not get to play on the first string team. But No, you instead went accross the field and have acted as an advisor to the OTHER team in regard to your former team mates play book. That action doesn't work as fair play in sports, the intelligence community, or in life. One one thing we can all agree, your actions here, disclosures, and attitude is that of one who is clearly an unfulfilled human being with an irrational fictitious theme of Man vs. Machine, and you now want revenge. That you cloak that effort in a claim of ideological debate as an academic exists only in your mind, and others do in fact see through it.
By the way, only those who are fools debate the innocense of the Rosenbergs and how they betrayed this country for their communist / world socialist beliefs; not unlike those who to this day believe Ojay didn't do it. Such minds of mush are not the material intelligence services and law enforcement are composed of. Thank God !!!
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 09, 2008, 10:45 AMIF George Maschke is guilty of treason for writing about polygraph countermeasures, then the polygrapher who "passed" Gary Ridgway and allowed him to avoid further suspicion is guilty of murder.
In addition, let's not forget the polygraphers who "passed" the known spies, who committed espionage against the U.S. Shouldn't they be arrested and tried for aiding and abetting espionage?
But wait, there's more! According to all known polygraphists, counter measures don't work anyway, so what's the big deal?
In addition, let's not forget the polygraphers who "passed" the known spies, who committed espionage against the U.S. Shouldn't they be arrested and tried for aiding and abetting espionage?
But wait, there's more! According to all known polygraphists, counter measures don't work anyway, so what's the big deal?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 09, 2008, 05:35 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Mar 08, 2008, 07:00 PMThat Al-Qaeda members or associates have exploited information available on AntiPolygraph.org is in no way tantamount to my having "aided and abetted the enemies of the United States."
Sorry George, you CAN'T have it both ways, even the press knows that in time of war there are limits on the first amendment.
No, there aren't. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a "wartime version" of the 1st Amendment, which simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
QuoteIf a nexus can be made that Al Quada used your work as a reference point, and your intent or result (despite the hollow platitudes of only trying to Help) was to hurt, cripple, maim, lessen, or effect U.S. Intelligence (National or International) then you get body slammed. I have made my position clear that you are no less than in the same catagory of the very people whom you claimed evaded U.S. Intelligence via Aldrich Ames and others, but they did so for money. Your betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations.
So you actually believe that by publicly telling the truth about polygraphy I have committed treason? And am I to understand that you would be pleased to see me executed for my "speech crime?" Was it not you who not so long ago lectured me:
QuoteGuys like you want to ban guys like me and throw out Freedom of expression, Freedom of the press, etc. Guys like me have spent a career sworn to uphold that constitution and its rights for the individual.
On a historical note, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not convicted of treason, but rather conspiracy to commit espionage. The appropriateness of their death sentence is debatable.
QuoteAs for "weakest links," I'd say that clearly one of the weakest (yet easily corrected) links in America's national security posture is our foolhardy embrace of the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We need not await the invention of a real lie detector before terminating our misplaced reliance on one that is a complete and utter fraud. In the words of Prof. Stephen E. Fienberg, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, "National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument."
In every post I have taken the time to read each and every poster begins or ends with the theme we are supposed to take as foundation when they say "I Never" or "I told the Truth" or "I was branded a liar".
Why should we take as gospel that each of these applicants, or any of their small numbers, are in fact telling us that they were in fact truthful. Others certainly came in, took the test, passed, and got the job ! Same test !!!! Same Questions !!! Only the applicant changed as a variable !!!! Somebody told the truth, somebody may have lied, or otherwise not have been as competative as the other. Somebody didn't get the job ! Not everyone is going to be happy at the end of the day !!! Life goes on in a positive direction for most, except for those too immature to move forward and who stay in a rut, and some even go so far as to seek revenge and betray their country and intelligence brothers and sisters, even if that aids and assists the enemies of the United States. Being a zealot and obsessed has it's price.
Large numbers of false positives are entirely consistent with what one would reasonably expect from using an invalid test to assess the honesty and integrity of individuals. Although jobs may ultimately be filled by those who are lucky enough to "pass," the process is eminently unfair to the many who are falsely branded as liars by their government.
QuoteNow George, with that PhD brain of yours, answer my prior question which will give you your own desired answer. Why do you site the NAS study as though it were a peer review study ? Clearly it is not !!
Actually, the NAS review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph has much in common with the process of peer-review for a scientific journal. It is a critical review by experts with a variety of relevant expertise who had no vested interest in the outcome.
QuoteThe Question: Aren't Prof. Stephen E. Fienberg and others in that report THE VERY SCIENTISTS who must be tested to maintain their security clearances
No, they're not. None of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening.
QuoteTHEREFORE, Obviously these pompous asses don't want to be tested at all and that we should just Truuuust Them !!! It is in reality PhD's like You, and those who suck off the breast of government who think they are above it all WHO ARE THE VERY PEOPLE we need to keep an eye on.
Again, none of the NAS panel members were subject to polygraph screening. They were nominated to the panel based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest. Their names were published on-line in advance, and members of the public were given the opportunity to object to any of the nominees. I am not aware that any objections were raised with regard to any of the panel members.
QuoteDidn't Wen Ho Lee plead guilty to the unauthorized distribution of nuclear weapons classified materials to the government of China ?
No, he didn't. The U.S. Department of Justice dropped a raft of charges against Dr. Lee in exchange for his agreement to plead guilty to a single count of mishandling classified information. At his plea hearing, the presiding judge apologized to Dr. Lee for the unfair treatment he received.
QuoteDidn't the evidence above and beyond the polygraph show this as well, which is why he plead to it. In reality, he should have been put against a brick wall and shot for treason, and in a better day without so many fuzzy headed liberals in place he would have.
The "fuzzy headed liberal" judge who apologized to Dr. Lee for the way he was treated was appointed by that "fuzzy headed liberal," President Ronald Reagan.
QuoteThe Polygraph a blunt instrument ? What an outragious statement !!!! Is a car a blunt instrument ?? In reality it is the Driver you / we should really be concerned about, and in government the best and brightest are chosen for polygraph school, and their "driving" of that instrument is done according to standards for which their is quality control / superiors overseeing.
Would you be an example of the "best and brightest" chosen for polygraph school?
QuoteYou are obsessed with an inanimate object and have attempted to demonize the trained professionals who use it. If you really want peer review, as the government does, then have psychophysiologists do so, and not a bunch of self serving PhD's egos make a self serving statement about it. Any fair minded person would agree that they are the peer review cousin who should be consulted, and not your self serving other scientists in the NAS. NAS "IS" a straw man argument when you claim them GM, as you didn't count on them so easily being torn down as having a bias as the subjects of the polygraph for the very jobs and security clearances they hold. What other result did you expect them to say ? You and They clearly have a God Dam complex about rebelling against legimate checks and balances / authority over you.
Again, none of the NAS panel members were themselves subject to polygraph screening. No matter how good or bright the polygraph operator, the polygraph is indeed to blunt an instrument: it simply cannot detect deception. Polygraphic lie tests have no grounding in the scientific method. As Professor Fienberg also observed, "Polygraph testing has been the gold standard, but it's obviously fool's gold." Of course, it's only obvious to those who are not blinded by self-interest.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 08, 2008, 09:46 PMQuoteThe docmented effectiveness to which I refer are the tests in which individuals who are, for some reason, not qualified for a particular position, but still try to acquire the job. When verified evidence surfaces that disqualifies them, the process is a success and is valuable. In other words, pre-test, in-test or post-test admissions or confessions.
Only if they can get the applicant to make a confession or admission. Gullible, naive and innocent applicants are more likey to make insignificant admissions that will be blown out of all proportion by examiners. OTOH, would be or actual spies (e.g. Aldrich Ames) will sit there, look you in the eye, and calmly deny until the cow comes home (and consequently pass!).
Note that background investigations, in which admissions can be "checked out" only take place IF/ONLY IF the applicant passes the polygraph and moves forward in the hiring process!
Note the following from the NAS report:
"Nevertheless, if the proportion of major security risks in the population being screened is equal to or less than 1 in 1,000, it is reasonable to expect even with optimistic assessments of polygraph test accuracy that each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive, from whom the spy or terrorist would be indistinguishable by polygraph test result. The possibility that deceptive examinees may use countermeasures makes this tradeoff even less attractive."
IOW, in the case of employment screening tests, innocent people are falsely labeled deceptive who aren't. Sometimes they luck out and ACTUALLY CATCH SOMEONE! Of course, they will never know because there is no follow up verification when people fail the test. In the case of both false and true positives, the applicant just get's a "rejection" letter. The trade off ain't worth it!
Which is why my advise to applicants is DON'T LET THEM CON YOU INTO MAKING A FALSE CONFESSION! Listen to the questions, have them explain the questions so you know exactly what they mean, answerthe questions truthfully, and don't believe them if they try to tell you that you are lying when you ain't!
Their goal is NOT to test the veracity of the applicants answers to relevant question, but TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN GET OUT OF YOU, whether you answer the relevant questions truthfully or not!
Don't fall for their STING operation!
The Relevant questions on my test were:
1. Have you ever had an unauthorized contact with a foreign national?
2. Have you ever plotted to overthrow the US government or belong to any group advocating the same?
3. Have you ever knowingly disclosed classified information?
4. Do you plan to answer all questions on this test truthfully?
No, hell no, of course not, and no freaking way!!!
What else is there to talk about?
And if the INTERROGATION continues, just know you are being truthful. Think about what you're going to eat for dinner later that evening. Think about how you think the Yankees will do this year. Go over your "family tree" in your head starting on our paternal side with your GGGGF. And, yes, keep shaking your head and say: "no, no, can't think of why I'd be reacting to that question. Gee! I just don't know. I'm drawing a blank sir. Sorry!"
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 08, 2008, 09:27 PMNoLieGuy4U
If someone told me that I will be dealt with one way or the other, and I knew he had no legal recoarse, the only thing in my thinking would be bodily harm. I assure you the hit would be made by me. You offered no explination to the statement and given our intel. com. history, what the hell is one to think. Any one who is not hell bent on destroying George's and this sites credibility knows exactly to what I was referring so don't try to saddle me with the suggestion.
I have no idea what George's job is and I expect neither do you unless he has put such a burr under the Intel. com's. saddle that you have wasted the taxpayers money having him investigated and the investigation turned up nothing. I think what's happening here is a lot of expectorating rhetoric b.s. I can assure you one thing. If I was in George's shoes, you and Jack Trimarco would have to do a lot of proving to a federal judge and jury.
George's character is so far above that of his detractors that the attempts to malign him have been totally without merit and equally without success. He has called me down a couple of times for answering a gig at me with a much stronger gig in return therefore, I do not post as strongly as I would like sometimes out of respect for him, this site and visitors who come here to learn.
You polygraphers are doing yourselves great harm the way you carry on here mouthing the same old crap day after day. Occasionally one will come here with the intellectual ability to debate.
If someone told me that I will be dealt with one way or the other, and I knew he had no legal recoarse, the only thing in my thinking would be bodily harm. I assure you the hit would be made by me. You offered no explination to the statement and given our intel. com. history, what the hell is one to think. Any one who is not hell bent on destroying George's and this sites credibility knows exactly to what I was referring so don't try to saddle me with the suggestion.
I have no idea what George's job is and I expect neither do you unless he has put such a burr under the Intel. com's. saddle that you have wasted the taxpayers money having him investigated and the investigation turned up nothing. I think what's happening here is a lot of expectorating rhetoric b.s. I can assure you one thing. If I was in George's shoes, you and Jack Trimarco would have to do a lot of proving to a federal judge and jury.
George's character is so far above that of his detractors that the attempts to malign him have been totally without merit and equally without success. He has called me down a couple of times for answering a gig at me with a much stronger gig in return therefore, I do not post as strongly as I would like sometimes out of respect for him, this site and visitors who come here to learn.
You polygraphers are doing yourselves great harm the way you carry on here mouthing the same old crap day after day. Occasionally one will come here with the intellectual ability to debate.
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 08, 2008, 07:00 PMThat Al-Qaeda members or associates have exploited information available on AntiPolygraph.org is in no way tantamount to my having "aided and abetted the enemies of the United States."
Sorry George, you CAN'T have it both ways, even the press knows that in time of war there are limits on the first amendment. If a nexus can be made that Al Quada used your work as a reference point, and your intent or result (despite the hollow platitudes of only trying to Help) was to hurt, cripple, maim, lessen, or effect U.S. Intelligence (National or International) then you get body slammed. I have made my position clear that you are no less than in the same catagory of the very people whom you claimed evaded U.S. Intelligence via Aldrich Ames and others, but they did so for money. Your betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations.
You state that I "will be dealt with one way or the other." Please elaborate.
I have done so in my response to the poster proceeding this writing who enquired about same.
As for "weakest links," I'd say that clearly one of the weakest (yet easily corrected) links in America's national security posture is our foolhardy embrace of the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We need not await the invention of a real lie detector before terminating our misplaced reliance on one that is a complete and utter fraud. In the words of Prof. Stephen E. Fienberg, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, "National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument."
In every post I have taken the time to read each and every poster begins or ends with the theme we are supposed to take as foundation when they say "I Never" or "I told the Truth" or "I was branded a liar".
Why should we take as gospel that each of these applicants, or any of their small numbers, are in fact telling us that they were in fact truthful. Others certainly came in, took the test, passed, and got the job ! Same test !!!! Same Questions !!! Only the applicant changed as a variable !!!! Somebody told the truth, somebody may have lied, or otherwise not have been as competative as the other. Somebody didn't get the job ! Not everyone is going to be happy at the end of the day !!! Life goes on in a positive direction for most, except for those too immature to move forward and who stay in a rut, and some even go so far as to seek revenge and betray their country and intelligence brothers and sisters, even if that aids and assists the enemies of the United States. Being a zealot and obsessed has it's price.
Now George, with that PhD brain of yours, answer my prior question which will give you your own desired answer. Why do you site the NAS study as though it were a peer review study ? Clearly it is not !! The Question: Aren't Prof. Stephen E. Fienberg and others in that report THE VERY SCIENTISTS who must be tested to maintain their security clearances THEREFORE, Obviously these pompous asses don't want to be tested at all and that we should just Truuuust Them !!! It is in reality PhD's like You, and those who suck off the breast of government who think they are above it all WHO ARE THE VERY PEOPLE we need to keep an eye on. Didn't Wen Ho Lee plead guilty to the unauthorized distribution of nuclear weapons classified materials to the government of China ? Didn't the evidence above and beyond the polygraph show this as well, which is why he plead to it. In reality, he should have been put against a brick wall and shot for treason, and in a better day without so many fuzzy headed liberals in place he would have. The Polygraph a blunt instrument ? What an outragious statement !!!! Is a car a blunt instrument ?? In reality it is the Driver you / we should really be concerned about, and in government the best and brightest are chosen for polygraph school, and their "driving" of that instrument is done according to standards for which their is quality control / superiors overseeing. You are obsessed with an inanimate object and have attempted to demonize the trained professionals who use it. If you really want peer review, as the government does, then have psychophysiologists do so, and not a bunch of self serving PhD's egos make a self serving statement about it. Any fair minded person would agree that they are the peer review cousin who should be consulted, and not your self serving other scientists in the NAS. NAS "IS" a straw man argument when you claim them GM, as you didn't count on them so easily being torn down as having a bias as the subjects of the polygraph for the very jobs and security clearances they hold. What other result did you expect them to say ? You and They clearly have a God Dam complex about rebelling against legimate checks and balances / authority over you.
Sorry George, you CAN'T have it both ways, even the press knows that in time of war there are limits on the first amendment. If a nexus can be made that Al Quada used your work as a reference point, and your intent or result (despite the hollow platitudes of only trying to Help) was to hurt, cripple, maim, lessen, or effect U.S. Intelligence (National or International) then you get body slammed. I have made my position clear that you are no less than in the same catagory of the very people whom you claimed evaded U.S. Intelligence via Aldrich Ames and others, but they did so for money. Your betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations.
You state that I "will be dealt with one way or the other." Please elaborate.
I have done so in my response to the poster proceeding this writing who enquired about same.
As for "weakest links," I'd say that clearly one of the weakest (yet easily corrected) links in America's national security posture is our foolhardy embrace of the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We need not await the invention of a real lie detector before terminating our misplaced reliance on one that is a complete and utter fraud. In the words of Prof. Stephen E. Fienberg, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, "National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument."
In every post I have taken the time to read each and every poster begins or ends with the theme we are supposed to take as foundation when they say "I Never" or "I told the Truth" or "I was branded a liar".
Why should we take as gospel that each of these applicants, or any of their small numbers, are in fact telling us that they were in fact truthful. Others certainly came in, took the test, passed, and got the job ! Same test !!!! Same Questions !!! Only the applicant changed as a variable !!!! Somebody told the truth, somebody may have lied, or otherwise not have been as competative as the other. Somebody didn't get the job ! Not everyone is going to be happy at the end of the day !!! Life goes on in a positive direction for most, except for those too immature to move forward and who stay in a rut, and some even go so far as to seek revenge and betray their country and intelligence brothers and sisters, even if that aids and assists the enemies of the United States. Being a zealot and obsessed has it's price.
Now George, with that PhD brain of yours, answer my prior question which will give you your own desired answer. Why do you site the NAS study as though it were a peer review study ? Clearly it is not !! The Question: Aren't Prof. Stephen E. Fienberg and others in that report THE VERY SCIENTISTS who must be tested to maintain their security clearances
THEREFORE, Obviously these pompous asses don't want to be tested at all and that we should just Truuuust Them !!! It is in reality PhD's like You, and those who suck off the breast of government who think they are above it all WHO ARE THE VERY PEOPLE we need to keep an eye on. Didn't Wen Ho Lee plead guilty to the unauthorized distribution of nuclear weapons classified materials to the government of China ? Didn't the evidence above and beyond the polygraph show this as well, which is why he plead to it. In reality, he should have been put against a brick wall and shot for treason, and in a better day without so many fuzzy headed liberals in place he would have. The Polygraph a blunt instrument ? What an outragious statement !!!! Is a car a blunt instrument ?? In reality it is the Driver you / we should really be concerned about, and in government the best and brightest are chosen for polygraph school, and their "driving" of that instrument is done according to standards for which their is quality control / superiors overseeing. You are obsessed with an inanimate object and have attempted to demonize the trained professionals who use it. If you really want peer review, as the government does, then have psychophysiologists do so, and not a bunch of self serving PhD's egos make a self serving statement about it. Any fair minded person would agree that they are the peer review cousin who should be consulted, and not your self serving other scientists in the NAS. NAS "IS" a straw man argument when you claim them GM, as you didn't count on them so easily being torn down as having a bias as the subjects of the polygraph for the very jobs and security clearances they hold. What other result did you expect them to say ? You and They clearly have a God Dam complex about rebelling against legimate checks and balances / authority over you. Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 08, 2008, 06:18 PMYou may have crossed the line yourself with the statement "you will be delt with one way or the other", which would include assassination. That is a grave threat coming from a federal intel. agent. Maybe/maybe not federal courts would frown on such a threat.
No legal opinion here. Just my personal opinion.
In responding to your post let me say that in this equation it is YOU who has first suggested violence and not I. When I said GM would be dealt with one way or the other, it has the meaning that on one extreme nothing may be done in where he just fades away as a minor fly on the wall who made little impact or concern, other than to remind the home owner (intel. community) that such pests exist when you open the door too wide sometimes. OR, that perhaps the U.S. Gov. may elect either under the UCMJ or other Federal statutes to prosecute GM and give him his jury of 12 to which he would be entitled. They would let he, his Attorney(s), and supporters then make their case that they did no harm to this nation's security. You know, it really begs the question though !!! If others saw the Al Queda piece as I did, who had also written in, as perceiving GM bragging that our enemy did not fear the polygraph's use, AND he, known to be in contact with radical Iranian nationals and other middle easterners there in Holland, and able to read and write their respective languages; Who translated all of this for THEM ? I know of ONLY one person so obsessed, who is such a zealot, who has gone off the deep end, and who has the ability to have done so in such technical terms; and that person is GEORGE MASCHKE !!!! I wonder if he ever considered that there might be a turncoat / defector among our enemies who would testify to same, or if such a person existed whom GM met with who could say he did so as a tutor.
Your suggestion of Assasination is a product of your mind, and while I thank you for having such thoughts, it did not originate from my writings or mind. I have no fear of being spoken to by a U.S. Attorney probing this generic man's actions in what GM has done, my writings to him as opinions, or my character being looked at by such legal bodies. If it comes to that, GM will need a much better lawyer than I would ever need.
Thank You TwoBlock for relating your posting, and that it was not a legal opinion. I'm sure GM may be seeking a legal opinion though as his liberty may be the one at risk and not mine. His are the actions of what is known as a scoundral. Such obsessed minds are historically tunnel visioned and the difference between what they achieve, and were capable in life of achieving are sadly far apart.
If, as you suggested, and not I, that George were "Assasinated", it also begs the question as to what would be written on his tombstone.
Here "LIES" George W. Maschke
-He had a great education
-He had such great potential
-He became obsessed over an
inanimate object called the polygraph.
-He WAS an American and Veteran
-HE BETRAYED ALL THE ABOVE
TRY to rest in peace
Just a creative thought !!
No legal opinion here. Just my personal opinion.
In responding to your post let me say that in this equation it is YOU who has first suggested violence and not I. When I said GM would be dealt with one way or the other, it has the meaning that on one extreme nothing may be done in where he just fades away as a minor fly on the wall who made little impact or concern, other than to remind the home owner (intel. community) that such pests exist when you open the door too wide sometimes. OR, that perhaps the U.S. Gov. may elect either under the UCMJ or other Federal statutes to prosecute GM and give him his jury of 12 to which he would be entitled. They would let he, his Attorney(s), and supporters then make their case that they did no harm to this nation's security. You know, it really begs the question though !!! If others saw the Al Queda piece as I did, who had also written in, as perceiving GM bragging that our enemy did not fear the polygraph's use, AND he, known to be in contact with radical Iranian nationals and other middle easterners there in Holland, and able to read and write their respective languages; Who translated all of this for THEM ? I know of ONLY one person so obsessed, who is such a zealot, who has gone off the deep end, and who has the ability to have done so in such technical terms; and that person is GEORGE MASCHKE !!!! I wonder if he ever considered that there might be a turncoat / defector among our enemies who would testify to same, or if such a person existed whom GM met with who could say he did so as a tutor.
Your suggestion of Assasination is a product of your mind, and while I thank you for having such thoughts, it did not originate from my writings or mind. I have no fear of being spoken to by a U.S. Attorney probing this generic man's actions in what GM has done, my writings to him as opinions, or my character being looked at by such legal bodies. If it comes to that, GM will need a much better lawyer than I would ever need.
Thank You TwoBlock for relating your posting, and that it was not a legal opinion. I'm sure GM may be seeking a legal opinion though as his liberty may be the one at risk and not mine. His are the actions of what is known as a scoundral. Such obsessed minds are historically tunnel visioned and the difference between what they achieve, and were capable in life of achieving are sadly far apart.
If, as you suggested, and not I, that George were "Assasinated", it also begs the question as to what would be written on his tombstone.
Here "LIES" George W. Maschke
-He had a great education
-He had such great potential
-He became obsessed over an
inanimate object called the polygraph.
-He WAS an American and Veteran
-HE BETRAYED ALL THE ABOVE
TRY to rest in peace
Just a creative thought !!
Posted by yankeedog
- Mar 08, 2008, 03:27 PMPolyfibber,
Uh....No, they are not. At least I don't think they are the same entity.
. Well, maybe you're right, but I don't think so, unless of course you are correct, then you are right, but if you aren't, then you must be wrong.
The docmented effectiveness to which I refer are the tests in which individuals who are, for some reason, not qualified for a particular position, but still try to acquire the job. When verified evidence surfaces that disqualifies them, the process is a success and is valuable. In other words, pre-test, in-test or post-test admissions or confessions.
I have never said anything to George about being dealt with swifty and severely. Or, at all for that matter.
Uh....No, they are not. At least I don't think they are the same entity.
. Well, maybe you're right, but I don't think so, unless of course you are correct, then you are right, but if you aren't, then you must be wrong.The docmented effectiveness to which I refer are the tests in which individuals who are, for some reason, not qualified for a particular position, but still try to acquire the job. When verified evidence surfaces that disqualifies them, the process is a success and is valuable. In other words, pre-test, in-test or post-test admissions or confessions.
I have never said anything to George about being dealt with swifty and severely. Or, at all for that matter.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 08, 2008, 02:27 PMBased on "traffic analysis", both are the same entity.
Uh, notice the same wordy, long winded style, and pattern of making assinine assumptions, inconsistent claims, and false allegation, rather than addressing facts.
Uh, notice the same wordy, long winded style, and pattern of making assinine assumptions, inconsistent claims, and false allegation, rather than addressing facts.