- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 16, 2008, 06:52 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 16, 2008, 11:17 AMNotguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?
I suspect the real answer is both.
Sancho Panza
Nope.... just took me 3 shots cause I couldn't stop laughing at you
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 16, 2008, 02:19 PMQuoteIf polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?
When I failed my polygraph, the NSA reported me to the FBI, but they found no substance to NSA security's claims. The Special Agent actually apologized. This was the Honolulu office, in April 2002. I did a FOIA recently and there was nothing on me in their records. Polygraph high drama at it's best.
If I remember correctly, trimarco claimed GW to be a spy and drug runner. Either they chose NOT to do a follow up, or did one, and found nothing.
TC
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 16, 2008, 01:42 PMQuote from: 727C7B7A150 on Oct 16, 2008, 01:00 PMIf polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?
Maybe, because they believe polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim. Why would they feel the need to launch an investigation ? Dr. Maschke has been successfully denied access to information the U.S. Government has determined to their satisfaction he is not sufficiently trustworthy to possess. In goverment circles, I think they call that "Mission Accomplished".
According to S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood Dr. Maschke was "caught" lying on a polygraph examination and attempting countermeasures, neither of which have a criminal penalty involving prison in the context of a security clearance screening examination.
Sancho Panza
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 16, 2008, 01:00 PMQuoteWould we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.
If polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 16, 2008, 12:11 PMQuote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 11:43 PMI suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters.Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.
Getrealalready.
If Dr. Maschke, when he wrote his story, would have merely reported examination results and not related them to his actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters, then this discussion would be moot.
In Dr. Maschke's self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" He characterizes the results of those examinations in the light most favorable to his position. He both claims that he told the truth and denies using countermeasures. However, if you think about it, there just might be differing opinions as to why he failed one exam and was accused of cheating on the other.
Special Agent Trimarco was obviously of the opinion that DR. Maschke Lied on his exam regarding contact with foreign nationals and releasing classified information. It is a reasonable conclusion that Special Agent Trimarco believes that he CAUGHT Dr. Mashke lying on his test. Would we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.
Mr. Youngblood was obviously of the opinion that Dr. Maschke attempted countermeasures on that examination and apparently had it confirmed by his supervisor. It is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Youngblood believes he CAUGHT Dr. Maschke trying to cheat on his exam.
At the very least there are at least three trained professionals who were present during Dr. Maschke's exams who, after careful evaluation of the circumstances and data, disagree with Dr. Maschke's characterization of the findings. There is, at the very least, as much reason, proof, evidence, (whatever you choose to call it) to believe their findings as there is to believe Dr. Maschke. It is no more slanderous of Dr. Maschke to proclaim his guilt than it is slanderous of Special Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood to proclaim his innocence. His story charges the federal government with collusion to deny him a security clearance by getting Mr. Youngblood to accuse him of countermeasures.
If our government somehow decided that they didn't trust Dr. Mashcke for any reason from suspicion of selling classified information to using the wrong fork at dinner, they could have simply revoked his security clearance or chosen not to renew it then classified their reason at a high level for "national security " and he would never know the why. If they were "out to get him" they wouldn't need a polygraph or collusion to get it done.
Your statement "Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity." is a statement of opinion, No matter how many people might share your opinion, that is all that it is, an opinion.
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 16, 2008, 11:17 AMNotguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?
I suspect the real answer is both.
Sancho Panza
I suspect the real answer is both.
Sancho Panza
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 16, 2008, 03:13 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 15, 2008, 08:43 AMMr. Scalabrini
You are free to assume whatever you wish, but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions.
Unless you know beforehand if every single person you polygraph is guilty of the crime of which they are accused, how can you tell what percentage of people make truthful confessions?
Twenty years ago what percentage of guilty people confessed? What percentage of guilty people did not confess? What are the percentages today?
How do you know that the last hundred people you "passed" weren't lying about every relevant issue on their exam? How do you know if a random group of a hundred test subjects from twenty years ago that also "passed" their polygraphs were not lying in response to the relevant questions?
I'm sure that twenty years ago the polygraph was a useful device in obtaining confessions, just as it is today. If that is what you meant I can certainly understand and agree with you. But I don't see how you could make any comparisons more detailed than that.
Posted by getrealalready
- Oct 15, 2008, 11:43 PMS.P.
I stand completely behind that which I wrote and which you in part referred to (partially quoted):
Again, If you had merely reported that Dr. Maschke had been found deceptive on more than one polygraph, you would have agreed with his considerably earlier self-report on the matter. You did not. You engaged in childish slander.
I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters. Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.
I stand completely behind that which I wrote and which you in part referred to (partially quoted):
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMIf you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination), you would have given an accurate report (no slander) and even be in agreement with the self-report of Dr. Maschke.It is when you cross over into nonsensical characterizations that you slander.
Again, If you had merely reported that Dr. Maschke had been found deceptive on more than one polygraph, you would have agreed with his considerably earlier self-report on the matter. You did not. You engaged in childish slander.
I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters. Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 15, 2008, 11:31 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 11:30 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 11:16 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 15, 2008, 11:30 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 11:16 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 15, 2008, 11:16 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 06:40 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 15, 2008, 05:05 PMAnonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.Mr. Cullen,
First, Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.
Second, Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.
Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.
Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.
Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges thatQuote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMDr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph examsQuote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMIf you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination),you would have given an accurate report
I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.
Sancho Panza
Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
You crack me up Sancho!
Every day I look forward to reading what stupid statements you'll come up with and in true form you outdo yourself every day
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 15, 2008, 06:40 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 15, 2008, 05:05 PMAnonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.Mr. Cullen,
First, Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.
Second, Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.
Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.
Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.
Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMDr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMIf you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination),you would have given an accurate report
I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.
Sancho Panza
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 15, 2008, 05:28 PMQuoteI can speak only of the confession rate following polygraph examinations that I have personally conducted. I have not observed any significant change in that rate since the launch of this site.
I wouldn't doubt that, given that most people come here looking for answers only AFTER being polygraphed. They bought the popular myth that the polygraph is accurate, therefore are looking for an explanation of why they could have possibly failed having told the truth.
That won't change until the popular media picks up on the truth. Popular culture is is always slow to change. It takes at least a generation of two for popular beliefs to change. In the meantime, open minded people can come here and get the real facts about the polygraph, whilst the masses get their info from Dr. Phil and Maury Povich.
TC