- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by notguilty1
- Jun 08, 2008, 07:28 PMQuote from: Alpha11 on Jun 08, 2008, 03:19 PMNot guilty,
Probably just another polygrapher who doesn't like hearing the truth, and, as you said, with nothing constructive to contribute, or anything substantive to respond with.
So he posts a personal attack. We see this here all the time.
As for moving on. I am now in the lingerie business. You now panties, thongs...etc. It has been very lucrative for me. Last week alone I pulled down about 2000!
TC
Hey TC, Glad to hear it and I will assume you don't need to go on an anti-pantie site to defend your livelyhood LOL
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 08, 2008, 03:19 PMNot guilty,
Probably just another polygrapher who doesn't like hearing the truth, and, as you said, with nothing constructive to contribute, or anything substantive to respond with.
So he posts a personal attack. We see this here all the time.
As for moving on. I am now in the lingerie business. You now panties, thongs...etc. It has been very lucrative for me. Last week alone I pulled down about 2000!
TC
Probably just another polygrapher who doesn't like hearing the truth, and, as you said, with nothing constructive to contribute, or anything substantive to respond with.
So he posts a personal attack. We see this here all the time.
As for moving on. I am now in the lingerie business. You now panties, thongs...etc. It has been very lucrative for me. Last week alone I pulled down about 2000!
TC
Posted by notguilty1
- Jun 08, 2008, 12:14 PMQuote from: Alpha11 on Jun 08, 2008, 01:32 AMT.M.,
Honestly, you are all over this board and your obsession oozes out to where even the occasional reader on this board would assume that it may have in fact been your psychological, rather than your polygraph, which kept you from obtaining your goals. Plain and Simple, you just may have not measured up above and beyond your polygraph as in what you write is so negative and vile that I wonder how you get through the day. Maybe your better off as an Amway distributor or something, rather than bringing your crap attitudes into government. Tone it down, take a Dale Carnegie course, and maybe go out and find a job which can live with YOU !!! I don't know what that job is, but it's not in an environment where others need to stay positive and focussed like the Feds as an Intelligence type. What other professions have you considered or applied for ? Your perpetutation of your claimed victimization is getting thin, as you have NOT moved on and are still obsessing here. Spare US !!!! Your about as depressing to read as a bill from a funeral parlor salesman.
Alpha 11 / New Mexico
It's funny how someone can come on here and trash TM Cullen while not participating in any constrctive way.
Mr. Cullen is passionate about his Polygraph experience as am I and many others. This is about shining a light on an in accurate and un- scientific process that is illegal in for most applications and has somehow survived in fed employment and criminal investigations (though in the later it holds little to no weight) ultimatly labeling people as liers when they may not be.
I don't think this is whinning but a fight that people like us that have been wrongfully labeled need to fight.
We must be on to something because this site is VERY successfull and there are many examiners that make it their business to come here daily to try to shore up thier scam and income from it.
I am sure that Mr. Cullen has moved on profesionally and has a rewarding job in spite of his false positive. I am sure his involvement here is to further education to those that seek the truth in the Polygraph lie.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 08, 2008, 03:20 AMHow exactly is it treason for a person to warn the troops not to rely on an unreliable detector of deception?
Do you honestly believe that if this web site did not exist then no one on the planet would have access to information on countermeasures? That's ridiculous.
All George did was point on that the troops should not rely on something that is inaccurate to begin with, and that can also be easily defeated or confounded by anyone with access to either the internet or a public library.
Would it be better for the troops to use the port-a-poly and believe that anyone who passes must be innocent of any terrorist activities? Is that helping the troops?
Do you honestly believe that if this web site did not exist then no one on the planet would have access to information on countermeasures? That's ridiculous.
All George did was point on that the troops should not rely on something that is inaccurate to begin with, and that can also be easily defeated or confounded by anyone with access to either the internet or a public library.
Would it be better for the troops to use the port-a-poly and believe that anyone who passes must be innocent of any terrorist activities? Is that helping the troops?
Posted by BarneyH
- Jun 08, 2008, 02:01 AM Lethe,
You fail to recognized the obvious !!! G.M. is a former career Intel Officer of 20 years, and knowingly tried to undermine & interfere with the chain of command structure in a time of war. Opinions aside, he tried to tell our troops not to trust their superiors in the equipment they were given. We have a democracy which places those Officers over those men, as he well knows, and in trying to undermine that no matter what the issue, is sedition which is a close cousin to treason. He gets what he gets; either from authorities overtly, or otherwise as it all unfolds. I doubt even you in expression of your opinions here would have crossed that line as he did, especially if you were a vet who had served in a war zone. Don't confuse debating a point to death with real world consequences which must be accounted for; and there will be an accounting I think for all extremists.
You fail to recognized the obvious !!! G.M. is a former career Intel Officer of 20 years, and knowingly tried to undermine & interfere with the chain of command structure in a time of war. Opinions aside, he tried to tell our troops not to trust their superiors in the equipment they were given. We have a democracy which places those Officers over those men, as he well knows, and in trying to undermine that no matter what the issue, is sedition which is a close cousin to treason. He gets what he gets; either from authorities overtly, or otherwise as it all unfolds. I doubt even you in expression of your opinions here would have crossed that line as he did, especially if you were a vet who had served in a war zone. Don't confuse debating a point to death with real world consequences which must be accounted for; and there will be an accounting I think for all extremists.
Posted by Alpha11
- Jun 08, 2008, 01:32 AM T.M.,
Honestly, you are all over this board and your obsession oozes out to where even the occasional reader on this board would assume that it may have in fact been your psychological, rather than your polygraph, which kept you from obtaining your goals. Plain and Simple, you just may have not measured up above and beyond your polygraph as in what you write is so negative and vile that I wonder how you get through the day. Maybe your better off as an Amway distributor or something, rather than bringing your crap attitudes into government. Tone it down, take a Dale Carnegie course, and maybe go out and find a job which can live with YOU !!! I don't know what that job is, but it's not in an environment where others need to stay positive and focussed like the Feds as an Intelligence type. What other professions have you considered or applied for ? Your perpetutation of your claimed victimization is getting thin, as you have NOT moved on and are still obsessing here. Spare US !!!! Your about as depressing to read as a bill from a funeral parlor salesman.
Alpha 11 / New Mexico
Honestly, you are all over this board and your obsession oozes out to where even the occasional reader on this board would assume that it may have in fact been your psychological, rather than your polygraph, which kept you from obtaining your goals. Plain and Simple, you just may have not measured up above and beyond your polygraph as in what you write is so negative and vile that I wonder how you get through the day. Maybe your better off as an Amway distributor or something, rather than bringing your crap attitudes into government. Tone it down, take a Dale Carnegie course, and maybe go out and find a job which can live with YOU !!! I don't know what that job is, but it's not in an environment where others need to stay positive and focussed like the Feds as an Intelligence type. What other professions have you considered or applied for ? Your perpetutation of your claimed victimization is getting thin, as you have NOT moved on and are still obsessing here. Spare US !!!! Your about as depressing to read as a bill from a funeral parlor salesman.
Alpha 11 / New Mexico
Posted by Lethe
- Jun 07, 2008, 11:10 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Jun 07, 2008, 01:32 AMThe answer to your question is simple in that under the law ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not. Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA. Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line. He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors. Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.
Okay, so your argument is that George is attempting to give aid and comfort to the enemy. That is, the main purpose of his two acts (saying the PCASS is not accurate and that it can be beaten by such-and-such a method) is to help the enemy. I don't think that claim withstands any scrutiny.
Examining all of George's actions, I don't think you could come to any conclusion other than that George is motivated by a desire to end the widespread use of the polygraph as it is now used. As he advocates doing this through purely legal, non-violent means, his pursuit of this goal is perfectly legal and protected by the first amendment. I think it'd even be reasonable to say that George thinks that, far from hurting U.S. security and interests, eliminating the dependence on the polygraph as it is now used would enhance U.S. security.
Now, you can absolutely argue those two points and say that the way the polygraph is now used is great and must be continued and that changing it at all would damage U.S. security. But I see no evidence whatsoever that George wants to do anything that he believes would hurt America and/or help terrorists. So, you can say that the effect of his actions would be to hurt the U.S., but you can't say (unless you have an argument that hasn't occurred to me, in which case please share it) that that is his intent.
Basically, you can argue that an act is immoral either because of (1) the effect of that act or (2) the motives behind the act. So far as the PCASS is concerned, you can't argue that George's actions will be harmful unless you admit that he is right about how inaccurate it is and/or how easy it is to beat. And I don't see how you can argue that his motive is to hurt the United States and/or help terrorists. But if you want to try, please do so.
Also, you say that he has "translat[ed] CM's into the language of the enemy." Perhaps you are referring to the Al Qaeda manual that George translated from "the language of the enemy" into English? If so, you need to be careful not to base your arguments on inaccurate information. If not, I'd appreciate knowing what you are referring to.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 07, 2008, 02:40 AMQuoteThe answer to your question is simple in that under the law ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not. Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA. Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line. He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors. Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!! Wink It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.
Another feeble attempt by an anonymous coward to slander GM.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Posted by LuckyBlueEyes
- Jun 07, 2008, 01:32 AM Hi,
The answer to your question is simple in that under the law ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not. Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA. Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line. He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors. Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!! It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM.
The answer to your question is simple in that under the law ATTEMPTS COUNT, regardless of the success of the attempt or not. Your guy Maschke crossed the line when he went "In League" with the enemies of the USA. Having an opinion of one thing, translating CM's into the language of the enemy, despite what they have done on their own, crosses over the line. He has an obsession with this issue, lost perspective, and I suppose time will show what happens to traitors. Let's all just sit back and watch the show !!!!
It always ends badly for the guy in the black hat like GM. Posted by Lethe
- Jun 06, 2008, 08:31 PMI still don't see how polygraphers can accuse George of treason while still being consistent with their other statements. It seems to me that they are making two sets of statements and that it is not possible for both to be true at the same time.
And if statement (1)(b) is true, that the PCASS can't be easily defeated, then the information that George is providing is not aiding the enemy since the information is invalid. Maybe it might encourage them to think they can defeat the great satan's silly toys, but following the information, if it is false--as you claim it is--will hinder, not help them.
I don't see how it is possible to say that George is committing treason under any reasonable definition of the term (and if a definition would make a large percentage of the American population traitors it is almost certainly not reasonable) unless the information he is providing and disseminating about (a) the accuracy of the PCASS and/or (b) it's ability to be defeated, in general, and in particular by the methods he also provides.
Am I going wrong someplace? Can someone explain how he is giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy if his claims about PCASS accuracy and susceptibility are false?
- (1) The PCASS is (a) highly accurate and (b) very difficult, if not practically impossible, to beat. AND
(2) George is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by saying that (a) the PCASS is not accurate and (b) it can be beaten relatively easily by doing such-and-such
And if statement (1)(b) is true, that the PCASS can't be easily defeated, then the information that George is providing is not aiding the enemy since the information is invalid. Maybe it might encourage them to think they can defeat the great satan's silly toys, but following the information, if it is false--as you claim it is--will hinder, not help them.
I don't see how it is possible to say that George is committing treason under any reasonable definition of the term (and if a definition would make a large percentage of the American population traitors it is almost certainly not reasonable) unless the information he is providing and disseminating about (a) the accuracy of the PCASS and/or (b) it's ability to be defeated, in general, and in particular by the methods he also provides.
Am I going wrong someplace? Can someone explain how he is giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy if his claims about PCASS accuracy and susceptibility are false?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 30, 2008, 01:12 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on May 29, 2008, 05:56 PMI'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused.
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.
As I mentioned in another thread about the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System, I am deeply concerned that a red light on the Port-A-Poly could become a green light for "enhanced interrogation techniques," the U.S. Government's euphemism for torture.
I don't know whether the PCASS is actually being used in the field, but I have yet to see any indication that it has been shelved. As mentioned on the blog, the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA) sent an instructor to Afghanistan in late April of this year to train soldiers in the use of the PCASS. That instructor (James Waller) seems himself to be deeply deluded about the PCASS's capabilities, telling a reporter, "Red means the subject was dishonest and lying to the security questions; green means they passed the test; yellow means the device did not get enough information to make a call so we need to rerun the test."
No reliance of any kind should be made on the color-coded blinkings of DACA's "traffic light of truth."
Posted by sackett
- May 29, 2008, 11:48 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on May 29, 2008, 05:56 PMI'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused.
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.
Arabs being wrongly convicted of what? As I understand it, the use of PCASS is to determine who the US military was to give (more) belief and trust to; not as a means of convicting anyone of anything. Iraq/Afghanistan has not given up their autonomy and we are not an occupying colonialist power.
I do appreciate the fact you do not see us as blood soaked death dealers. I guess that is a step up from what some have called us...
Sackett
Posted by Traction Jackson
- May 29, 2008, 05:56 PMI'm way late to this thread. Based on the last post, PCASS is probably considered old hat, and no doubt some new device is claiming to discern truth based on leeching, or maybe phrenology.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused.
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.
I believe in the ap.org mission, but something bothered me when I read the entries in this thread: None of you seemed concerned about how Arabs could face wrongful conviction based on faulty PCASS results. I just feel like this is an embarrassing omission considering your vehemence regarding a polygraph's many failures and your advocacy of the falsely accused.
Yes, American soldiers would face danger of letting enemies slip by. They also face a danger of condemning the innocent. Please consider ALL victims of a broken system.
Lethe, that seems a bit extreme. Polygraphers aren't bloodsoaked death-dealers; they're just misguided. Some probably don't care if it's true or not, and it's messed up, but still--it doesn't seem like effective argument just to heap exaggerations against them.
Posted by Lethe
- Apr 21, 2008, 02:02 AMPolygraphers don't give a damn about ruining people's lives; why would they give a damn about ending people's lives with their grandiose claims? They make more money the more people believe that the polygraph is as awesome as they say. So what if a bunch of people in the army (probably not good enough to be real polygraphers!) get killed?
Polygrapher math: Other people dying + money for you = a great deal! (Just be sure to cloak yourself in self righteousness)
Polygrapher math: Other people dying + money for you = a great deal! (Just be sure to cloak yourself in self righteousness)
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 20, 2008, 03:53 AMTwoblock,
While a good many polygraphers do regularly visit AntiPolygraph.org, the unusually large number of views associated some message threads is typically the result of their having been linked to on other websites. For example, the thread about PCASS's vulnerability to countermeasures is presently linked to at Cryptome.org.
While a good many polygraphers do regularly visit AntiPolygraph.org, the unusually large number of views associated some message threads is typically the result of their having been linked to on other websites. For example, the thread about PCASS's vulnerability to countermeasures is presently linked to at Cryptome.org.