- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Administrator
- Oct 20, 2008, 10:44 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 20, 2008, 10:34 PMQuote from: 6E6B6266610F0 on Oct 20, 2008, 09:15 PMFurther posts to this message thread should substantively address the original topic.
I'm sure Mr Cullen appreciates your assistance in changing the subject.
Sancho Panza
It is you who initiated subject-changing in this thread. Again, any further posts to this thread should address the original topic.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 20, 2008, 10:34 PMQuote from: 6E6B6266610F0 on Oct 20, 2008, 09:15 PMFurther posts to this message thread should substantively address the original topic.
I'm sure Mr Cullen appreciates your assistance in changing the subject.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 20, 2008, 09:20 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 20, 2008, 08:50 PMNotguilty1
When William Gaddis wrote that "Stupidity is the cultivation if ignorance" I can't help but think he had you in mind.
I did not address you or ask you anything and yet, you act just like the little boy in Kindergarten class who raises his hand to speak, not because he has something to say, but because he has an uncontrollable need to say something, so he doesn't feel left out.
Sancho Panza
P.S. TC thinks you are a cowardly cur because you use an alias.
sp
OK well, I am interested in hearing any other charms of wisdom you may have on the OP or any other post for that matter. It is amusing
Posted by Administrator
- Oct 20, 2008, 09:15 PMFurther posts to this message thread should substantively address the original topic.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 20, 2008, 08:50 PMNotguilty1
When William Gaddis wrote that "Stupidity is the cultivation if ignorance" I can't help but think he had you in mind.
I did not address you or ask you anything and yet, you act just like the little boy in Kindergarten class who raises his hand to speak, not because he has something to say, but because he has an uncontrollable need to say something, so he doesn't feel left out.
Sancho Panza
P.S. TC thinks you are a cowardly cur because you use an alias.
sp
When William Gaddis wrote that "Stupidity is the cultivation if ignorance" I can't help but think he had you in mind.
I did not address you or ask you anything and yet, you act just like the little boy in Kindergarten class who raises his hand to speak, not because he has something to say, but because he has an uncontrollable need to say something, so he doesn't feel left out.
Sancho Panza
P.S. TC thinks you are a cowardly cur because you use an alias.
sp
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 20, 2008, 08:03 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 20, 2008, 04:45 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 20, 2008, 01:37 PMNot using an alias, like some cowardly curMr. Cullen I think we have addressed the anonymity issue sufficiently. You should now take it up with TwoBlock, NotGuilty1. Sergeant1107, Poly-ana and the rest. I think you are trying to bait me. With a little more practice you may become a black belt and eventually a master.
You need to stop and consider who you are backing here.
When I asked him "Have you ever participated in a conversations or correspondance in Arabic, Farsi, Persian, or any of the other languages natively spoken by Al Qaeda , the Taliban, or Islamist insurgents in Iraq or Afganistan in which you describe or explain the countermeasures described in your book? "; he could have said simply "NO", but instead tries to tap dance around the question with responses like "none of your business" I respect privacy" and then he plays the race card.
With this type of direct question, I think it is fair to conclude that any response but "NO" is actually a "YES". If he has in fact had these conversations he was either delivering information he believed to be accurate in languages natively spoken by Al Qaeda , the Taliban, or Islamist insurgents in Iraq or Afganistan or he was deliberately delivering mis-information at the behest of the U.S. Government or some other intelligence agency. Since we already know that based on Dr. Maschke's own statement, our government has determined that Dr. Maschke is not ever going to be placed on their list of people who get to decide what information should be translated and released to the enemies of our country then I think the former is more likely than the latter.
Mr. Cullen, what about you? Can you answer a direct question with either a yes or no?
Have you ever knowingly provided information to a foreign national that you believed could be used at any level to damage the objectives of The U.S. Military or intelligence services?
I just can't hardly wait to see if are actually going to answer or put on your tap shoes and start dancing.
Sancho Panza
Sancho,
If you were not so funny you'd be boring!
Who may I ask promoted you from lie detector genie to protector of our country against terrorists?
You don't see who silly you sound and thats what so dam funny.
Please Sancho stop chasing shadows and leave national security to the guys who actually know what the hell they are talking about.
They don't seem worried about GM, TC or this site but YOU ARE!!
You are making a complete ass of your self.
Hey were you hall monitor of the year in school? I bet you were
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 20, 2008, 04:45 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 20, 2008, 01:37 PMNot using an alias, like some cowardly curMr. Cullen I think we have addressed the anonymity issue sufficiently. You should now take it up with TwoBlock, NotGuilty1. Sergeant1107, Poly-ana and the rest. I think you are trying to bait me. With a little more practice you may become a black belt and eventually a master.
You need to stop and consider who you are backing here.
When I asked him "Have you ever participated in a conversations or correspondance in Arabic, Farsi, Persian, or any of the other languages natively spoken by Al Qaeda , the Taliban, or Islamist insurgents in Iraq or Afganistan in which you describe or explain the countermeasures described in your book? "; he could have said simply "NO", but instead tries to tap dance around the question with responses like "none of your business" I respect privacy" and then he plays the race card.
With this type of direct question, I think it is fair to conclude that any response but "NO" is actually a "YES". If he has in fact had these conversations he was either delivering information he believed to be accurate in languages natively spoken by Al Qaeda , the Taliban, or Islamist insurgents in Iraq or Afganistan or he was deliberately delivering mis-information at the behest of the U.S. Government or some other intelligence agency. Since we already know that based on Dr. Maschke's own statement, our government has determined that Dr. Maschke is not ever going to be placed on their list of people who get to decide what information should be translated and released to the enemies of our country then I think the former is more likely than the latter.
Mr. Cullen, what about you? Can you answer a direct question with either a yes or no?
Have you ever knowingly provided information to a foreign national that you believed could be used at any level to damage the objectives of The U.S. Military or intelligence services?
I just can't hardly wait to see if are actually going to answer or put on your tap shoes and start dancing.
Sancho Panza
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 20, 2008, 01:37 PMQuoteT.M. Cullen wrote on Yesterday at 2:47pm:
What difference does it make if insurgent, or Al Qaeda types use the info in GM's book?
Third. In case you haven't heard the news, Our government has determined that Dr. Maschke is not ever going to be placed on their list of people who gets to decide what information should be translated and released to the enemies of our country. The fact that YOU both believe that his countermeasures work and are OK that the information has been translated for our enemies reveals volumes about you. Have you ever wondered why if Dr. Maschke was able to convince our government that polygraph didn't work why he would think countermeasures are necessary? If it doesn't work why does it have to be defeated by cheating?
Sancho Panza
If CMs don't work, and all the info and advice GM provides in his book is so false, then why are you making such a fuss about it? The fact that you are making such a fuss about CMs and GM's book tends to indicate that you really DO believe CMs work, and that TLBLD is exposing the truth about the polygraph. And you fear this, and it seems to have the polygraph community in a "tizzy". In a made scramble to discredit the book and slander the authors. But in an open and free society, the truth ultimately prevails. Liars, magic potion sellers, gypsy fortune tellers...etc. are eventually exposed. So join the club!
The polygraph is inaccurate and unreliable. It does more damage than good with regard to our national security. It brands honest, innocent people liars, while letting liars, spies, and cheats slip through the cracks.
It is being kept in place for political/bureaucratic/administrative and economic reasons. And has been for decades now.
We are now exposing the truth, and polygraph interrogators (like you) who make a living at it, are squealing like stuck pigs. That is to be expected. Along with your feeble and cowardly attempts to slander the truth tellers under an ANONYMOUS name. In my book, if you are going to slander somebody, you should do it using your REAL name. Not using an alias, like some cowardly cur.
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 20, 2008, 12:32 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 20, 2008, 11:28 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 20, 2008, 10:26 AMPolygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud
If you could really prove that statement, cheating on the test would be unnecessary. Polygraph is not "pseudoscience" and it is not fraud.
I'm afraid you are blinded by self-interest in your assessment of the scientific merits of polygraphy.
QuoteLike I said before , if you think that Daniel Sosnowski has committed some crime or colluded with the Department of the Army in some type of bid-rigging scheme, why don't you lodge a formal complaint with the Department of the Army or the GAO instead of tossing about unsupported allegations ? Could it be that you won't lodge a complaint because you know you lack credibility with the U.S. Government?
For the moment, I am content to leave that option to such of Mr. Sosnowski's competitors as may feel they were unfairly disadvantaged by the contract award process.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 20, 2008, 11:28 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 20, 2008, 10:26 AMPolygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud
If you could really prove that statement, cheating on the test would be unnecessary. Polygraph is not "pseudoscience" and it is not fraud.
Like I said before , if you think that Daniel Sosnowski has committed some crime or colluded with the Department of the Army in some type of bid-rigging scheme, why don't you lodge a formal complaint with the Department of the Army or the GAO instead of tossing about unsupported allegations ? Could it be that you won't lodge a complaint because you know you lack credibility with the U.S. Government?
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 20, 2008, 10:26 AMSancho Panza,
Indeed, it appears to me that the Department of the Army's offer was tailored for a single contractor and that the contract was not awarded competitively. Ten days is very short notice on which to prepare a bid on such a contract.
But what I find most troubling is not that our government may have spent more than it might have to train eight Iraqis as polygraphers, but rather that the entire project is a complete waste of U.S. taxpayer money. Polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud, and to the extent that the Iraqi government places any reliance on the auguries of its newly indoctrinated polygraph chartgazers, it will undermine its security.
Indeed, it appears to me that the Department of the Army's offer was tailored for a single contractor and that the contract was not awarded competitively. Ten days is very short notice on which to prepare a bid on such a contract.
But what I find most troubling is not that our government may have spent more than it might have to train eight Iraqis as polygraphers, but rather that the entire project is a complete waste of U.S. taxpayer money. Polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud, and to the extent that the Iraqi government places any reliance on the auguries of its newly indoctrinated polygraph chartgazers, it will undermine its security.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 20, 2008, 09:28 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 19, 2008, 10:24 PMThe solicitation period opened on 21 March 2008 and closed a mere ten days later, suggesting that the U.S. Army was not seeking genuinely competitive bids, but had an awardee in mind from the outset. Nice work if you can get it
One thing about public contracts is that he can't respond to questions concerning his activities with "It's none of your business" He can't tap dance around claiming to "respect the privacy" of his business contacts and he certainly can't try to play the race card to try and shift focus away from his behavior.
You insinuated that their was something improper with the way that his contract was awarded.
If you really believe that there was collusion or "bid rigging" involved, why don't you lodge a complaint with the Department of the Army or the GAO?
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 20, 2008, 09:16 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 19, 2008, 02:47 PM(the polygraph is bogus),and the advice given in the book DOES WORK
First Mr. Cullen the polygraph is not bogus. It works, just like polygraphers say it does.
Second. Dr. Maschke and his co-author have been asked on more than one occasion to produce a single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are an effective means of passing a polygraph and are undetectable and (b) cited in their book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for effective and undetectable countermeasures.
They haven't been able to find one(not even one) yet.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Oct 19, 2008, 02:47 PMWhat difference does it make if insurgent, or Al Qaeda types use the info in GM's book?
Third. In case you haven't heard the news, Our government has determined that Dr. Maschke is not ever going to be placed on their list of people who gets to decide what information should be translated and released to the enemies of our country. The fact that YOU both believe that his countermeasures work and are OK that the information has been translated for our enemies reveals volumes about you. Have you ever wondered why if Dr. Maschke was able to convince our government that polygraph didn't work why he would think countermeasures are necessary? If it doesn't work why does it have to be defeated by cheating?
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 19, 2008, 10:24 PMWhile the Federal Procurement Data System report of the contract awarded to Dan Sosnowski is short on detail regarding just what services he is required to perform thereunder, the solicitation for the contract (see attached Microsoft Word document) provides additional detail.
In short, Sosnowski's $365,440 contract is for the provision of 8 polygraph instruments and the training of 8 Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Information employees as polygraph operators so that they can institute a polygraph screening program in the Iraqi government. The training was to run six months from 1 May 2008 to 31 October 2008. The U.S. Government was to provide Sosnowski with free lodging, meals, and training facilities.
The solicitation period opened on 21 March 2008 and closed a mere ten days later, suggesting that the U.S. Army was not seeking genuinely competitive bids, but had an awardee in mind from the outset. Nice work if you can get it.
In short, Sosnowski's $365,440 contract is for the provision of 8 polygraph instruments and the training of 8 Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Information employees as polygraph operators so that they can institute a polygraph screening program in the Iraqi government. The training was to run six months from 1 May 2008 to 31 October 2008. The U.S. Government was to provide Sosnowski with free lodging, meals, and training facilities.
The solicitation period opened on 21 March 2008 and closed a mere ten days later, suggesting that the U.S. Army was not seeking genuinely competitive bids, but had an awardee in mind from the outset. Nice work if you can get it.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 19, 2008, 05:39 PMTap dancing obviously isn't your forte'. Excuse me, I meant to say you just aren't very good at it.
Absence of your denial is clearly a tacit admission. In other words a party's silence when confronted with a statement made in his presence under circumstances that would normally call for a denial constitutes an admission.
You aren't in court or a "Star Chamber proceeding.
The First Amendment protects you from any tangible penalty that might result from a truthful response here, other than the possible exposure of information of which you would prefer your supporters remain ignorant. No one has asked you for the identities of the people to whom you have spoken and their privacy is not a t risk for exposure.
My question is no more racist than your statement:
My question seeks only to determine your level of participation in the aquisition of this information by "Islamist insurgents", "Al Qaeda" and the "Taliban".
No one has made the case yet that you have intentionally provided this information to the enemies of the United States. I, for one, leave open the possibility that you were duped by the agents of our enemies.
Sancho Panza
Absence of your denial is clearly a tacit admission. In other words a party's silence when confronted with a statement made in his presence under circumstances that would normally call for a denial constitutes an admission.
You aren't in court or a "Star Chamber proceeding.
The First Amendment protects you from any tangible penalty that might result from a truthful response here, other than the possible exposure of information of which you would prefer your supporters remain ignorant. No one has asked you for the identities of the people to whom you have spoken and their privacy is not a t risk for exposure.
My question is no more racist than your statement:
QuoteIt's worth noting that at least some Islamist insurgents in Iraq are well aware that polygraph "testing" is a fraud. See "The Myth of the Lie Detector" published in the Iraqi jihadist e-zine, Al-Fath, and available here in English translation. And for discussion, see Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
My question seeks only to determine your level of participation in the aquisition of this information by "Islamist insurgents", "Al Qaeda" and the "Taliban".
No one has made the case yet that you have intentionally provided this information to the enemies of the United States. I, for one, leave open the possibility that you were duped by the agents of our enemies.
Sancho Panza