- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 10, 2008, 04:44 AMQuote from: kpminam on Oct 09, 2008, 07:46 AMDr. Maschke, I was really hoping for something more substantive than your "The Polygrapher must have been guessing" excuseplanation. {excuseplanation- an excuse thinly disguised as an explanation}
I think I did substantively address the concerns you raised.
QuoteThe simple fact is that according to the evidence at hand, kpminam followed your directions and got busted for it. You claim that polygraph ruins potential careers, but when a dishonesty that you helped perpetrate ruins a career, you still refuse to acknowledge any responsibility.
I'm not shirking responsibility for anything I've written or said regarding polygraphy. The truth is important to me, and I think AntiPolygraph.org's policy of not censoring dissenting views is a reflection of that. We even have a forum dedicated to discussion of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector where any criticisms may be aired.
I have seen no evidence that the polygraph community has any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better-than-chance levels, and considerable evidence that it cannot. Such evidence is set forth in Chapter 4.
If it is your contention that the polygraph community can now detect countermeasures, I would be keenly interested in seeing the evidence therefor.
Given the available evidence, I can only continue to agree with the late David T. Lykken that, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards..." (A Tremor in The Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998, p. 277)
QuoteIn the words of James Russell Lowell~
Ef you take a sword an' dror it,
An' go stick a feller thru,
Guv'ment ain't to answer for it,
God'll send the bill to you.
Lowell wrote the poem you cite in protest against the U.S. war against Mexico (See, Ellsworth, Clayton Sumner, "The American Churches and the Mexican War," The American Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jan., 1940), pp. 301-326). The point of the poem is that those who choose to kill are personally responsible for their deeds, even though they kill for the State. Although I hesitate to analogize polygraphy to murder, what is the implication for government-hired polygraph operators who pretend to assess the credibility of individuals based on a thoroughly discredited procedure that has no scientific basis?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 09, 2008, 08:05 PMDedicated to T.M. Cullen
Georgey Porgey
Dishonesty and Lies
Conned his readers and made them lie.
When his readers came out to complain
Georgey Porgey denied all day.
Sancho Panza
Georgey Porgey
Dishonesty and Lies
Conned his readers and made them lie.
When his readers came out to complain
Georgey Porgey denied all day.
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 09, 2008, 05:26 PMWow Mr. Cullen that was almost as clever as a well timed, enthusiastic and resounding "OH YEAH?"
Almost, but not quite.
I am totally unsurprised that not only that you failed to grasp the meaning of the quote you also have nothing pertinent to say when somebody takes Dr. Maschke's advice and gets caught.
Sancho Panza
Almost, but not quite.
I am totally unsurprised that not only that you failed to grasp the meaning of the quote you also have nothing pertinent to say when somebody takes Dr. Maschke's advice and gets caught.
Sancho Panza
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 09, 2008, 02:46 PMQuoteIn the words of James Russell Lowell~
Ef you take a sword an' dror it,
An' go stick a feller thru,
Guv'ment ain't to answer for it,
God'll send the bill to you
Sancho Panza sat on a wall,
Sancho Panza took a great fall.
All of George's horse, and all of his men,
Decided not to put panza together again!
There once was a quack named Sackett,
Who keep defending his polygraph racket.
When confronted with a fact,
he'd put on an act.
In the end he just couldn't hack it!
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 09, 2008, 07:46 AMDr. Maschke, I was really hoping for something more substantive than your "The Polygrapher must have been guessing" excuseplanation. {excuseplanation- an excuse thinly disguised as an explanation}
The simple fact is that according to the evidence at hand, kpminam followed your directions and got busted for it. You claim that polygraph ruins potential careers, but when a dishonesty that you helped perpetrate ruins a career, you still refuse to acknowledge any responsibility.
In the words of James Russell Lowell~
Ef you take a sword an' dror it,
An' go stick a feller thru,
Guv'ment ain't to answer for it,
God'll send the bill to you.
Sancho Panza
The simple fact is that according to the evidence at hand, kpminam followed your directions and got busted for it. You claim that polygraph ruins potential careers, but when a dishonesty that you helped perpetrate ruins a career, you still refuse to acknowledge any responsibility.
In the words of James Russell Lowell~
Ef you take a sword an' dror it,
An' go stick a feller thru,
Guv'ment ain't to answer for it,
God'll send the bill to you.
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 09, 2008, 02:07 AMSancho Panza,
I have never promised that persons using countermeasures won't be accused of using countermeasures. What I have stated, and it remains true to this day, is that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and that peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was unconvinced that polygraphers have the ability to detect countermeasures. And after more than six years, the polygraph community has not mustered the courage to take up Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge.
I think it's clear that countermeasure "detection" consists largely of guesswork and badgering the examinee for an admission. Sometimes polygrapher guesses regarding countermeasure use will be correct. But they're often wrong. AntiPolygraph.org has heard from numerous victims of the LAPD pre-employment polygraph screening program who were falsely accused of using countermeasures. I am one such person. For additional examples, see the public statements of J. Daine, "Eyes Wide Open," and "Not a Yoga Master."
There is no evidence that actual countermeasure use increases the likelihood that a polygrapher will accuse the examinee of using countermeasures, or that not using countermeasures will decrease the risk of being so accused.
I have never promised that persons using countermeasures won't be accused of using countermeasures. What I have stated, and it remains true to this day, is that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and that peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was unconvinced that polygraphers have the ability to detect countermeasures. And after more than six years, the polygraph community has not mustered the courage to take up Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge.
I think it's clear that countermeasure "detection" consists largely of guesswork and badgering the examinee for an admission. Sometimes polygrapher guesses regarding countermeasure use will be correct. But they're often wrong. AntiPolygraph.org has heard from numerous victims of the LAPD pre-employment polygraph screening program who were falsely accused of using countermeasures. I am one such person. For additional examples, see the public statements of J. Daine, "Eyes Wide Open," and "Not a Yoga Master."
There is no evidence that actual countermeasure use increases the likelihood that a polygrapher will accuse the examinee of using countermeasures, or that not using countermeasures will decrease the risk of being so accused.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 08, 2008, 09:48 PMHmmmm Let's see. Dr. Maschke writes a book that endorses the use of polygraph counter measures as a way for "honest" people to pass their polygraph.
kpminam takes Dr. Maschke's advice and when he takes his polygraph test he uses Breathing Countermeasure which are described on page 145 of TLBTLD, Mental Counter Measures which are described on page 148 of TLBTLD and Tongue Biting which is described on page 149 of TLBTLD.
I mean why shouldn't he? Dr. Maschke has both convinced him that he can't pass his test by being honest and assured him that
But then something bad happens. Kpminam gets caught and confronted for using precisely the counter measures Dr. Maschke claims are undetectable and gets disqualified for a law enforcement position.
How could something like this happen??
Surely he wasn't caught doing exactly what he has admitted here he was doing. The polygrapher must have been just guessing. Dr. Maschke promissed he couldn't get caught. Dr. Maschke wouldn't lie about that even though he did co-write book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as long as they feel justified.
Like I have said many times there is a BIG LIE behind The Lie behind the Lie Detector. The techniques don't work like he says they do.
Honest people are no longer honest if they attempt countermeasures. Whether or not they are "caught" they are still liars.
Dr. Maschke, you may now begin to blame anyone but yourself for what happened to kpminam
Sancho Panza
PS you really need to rename your book. No one calls them lie detectors any more except for the writers of cheap detective novels and ambush TV shows like Maury and Jerry.
sp
QuoteWe believe that it is not unethical for truthful persons—faced with a government that routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process— to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselvesTLBTLD Page 126.
kpminam takes Dr. Maschke's advice and when he takes his polygraph test he uses Breathing Countermeasure which are described on page 145 of TLBTLD, Mental Counter Measures which are described on page 148 of TLBTLD and Tongue Biting which is described on page 149 of TLBTLD.
I mean why shouldn't he? Dr. Maschke has both convinced him that he can't pass his test by being honest and assured him that
QuoteThe countermeasures we've discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues (page 159) and peer-reviewed research suggests that they cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in this book. (page 156)
But then something bad happens. Kpminam gets caught and confronted for using precisely the counter measures Dr. Maschke claims are undetectable and gets disqualified for a law enforcement position.
How could something like this happen??
Surely he wasn't caught doing exactly what he has admitted here he was doing. The polygrapher must have been just guessing. Dr. Maschke promissed he couldn't get caught. Dr. Maschke wouldn't lie about that even though he did co-write book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as long as they feel justified.
Like I have said many times there is a BIG LIE behind The Lie behind the Lie Detector. The techniques don't work like he says they do.
Honest people are no longer honest if they attempt countermeasures. Whether or not they are "caught" they are still liars.
Dr. Maschke, you may now begin to blame anyone but yourself for what happened to kpminam
Sancho Panza
PS you really need to rename your book. No one calls them lie detectors any more except for the writers of cheap detective novels and ambush TV shows like Maury and Jerry.
sp
Posted by kpminam
- Oct 07, 2008, 04:13 PMI got the letter from LAPD today. I was disqualified from the exam process for 12 months because I apparently failed to follow the examiner's instructions.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 29, 2008, 02:25 PMQuoteI'm thinking maybe now I should not have used CM's...
=/
But not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one won't be accused of using them. This happened to me with the LAPD and has happened to numerous others. My LAPD polygrapher loudly and angrily accused me of having used countermeasures (he used that word) despite the fact that I not only had not used countermeasures -- at that time I didn't even know what they are!
Knowing what I now do about the unreliability of polygraphy, if I were in your shoes, I definitely would have used countermeasures to protect against the risk of a false positive outcome.
QuoteI will let this board know whether I failed or passed.
Thanks. You might want to register on this message board. This will enable you to edit your posts (up to 72 hours after making them) and to exchange private messages with other users.
Posted by kpminam
- Sep 29, 2008, 01:11 PMShe also did not mention countermeasures, just that I was manipulating the readings. I'm hoping she was suspicious that I passed with flying colors and was hoping to intimidate me to confess something..
Posted by kpminam
- Sep 29, 2008, 01:09 PMI'm thinking maybe now I should not have used CM's...
=/
I will let this board know whether I failed or passed.
Sorry, I accidentally edited your post when I meant to reply to it! No changes have been made. -- George Maschke
=/
I will let this board know whether I failed or passed.
Sorry, I accidentally edited your post when I meant to reply to it! No changes have been made. -- George Maschke
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 29, 2008, 01:04 PMAt this point, it's impossible to say. If the polygrapher reports that in his opinion, you used countermeasures, then yes, it's tantamount to failing. On the other hand, polygraphers, having no reliable method of detecting countermeasures, may bluff the examinee for an admission, and it's not a foregone conclusion that your polygrapher's report will include the opinion that you used countermeasures. Unfortunately, there's no way to know for sure until you hear further from personnel.
Posted by kpminam
- Sep 29, 2008, 12:48 PMI took the polygraph today for a law enforcement position. Confident that I was honest all the way.
I used CM's on all the control questions. Breathing, mental and tongue biting.
At the end the examiner took me in and accused me of deliberately manipulating the readings!
First he asked me "How do you think you did? Any questions that I asked that you weren't sure about?"
I said well the question where you asked "have you ever lied to a person of authority" I kept asking myself if I told little white lies here and there to teachers, parents etc.
He nodded his head and dropped the bomb. He said he talked to his supervisor and said I was deliberately manipulating the reading. I denied it and said I have no idea how to manipulate the reading!
He said o.k he will have to write a report and send it into personnel. There they will give me a call. He also suggested I keep going through with my process and wished me good luck at the end.
Is this a fail?
I used CM's on all the control questions. Breathing, mental and tongue biting.
At the end the examiner took me in and accused me of deliberately manipulating the readings!
First he asked me "How do you think you did? Any questions that I asked that you weren't sure about?"
I said well the question where you asked "have you ever lied to a person of authority" I kept asking myself if I told little white lies here and there to teachers, parents etc.
He nodded his head and dropped the bomb. He said he talked to his supervisor and said I was deliberately manipulating the reading. I denied it and said I have no idea how to manipulate the reading!
He said o.k he will have to write a report and send it into personnel. There they will give me a call. He also suggested I keep going through with my process and wished me good luck at the end.
Is this a fail?