Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by G Scalabr
 - Mar 19, 2003, 11:41 PM
QuoteSo, i see that George is neither a polygraph examiner nor has he gone to polygraph school.  I guess some book is more important than real-life genuine knowledge.  No wonder people scoff at academics.

Not everyone is scoffing. Some, like Paul Menges of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, think that the information featured here is threatening enough that it should be banned.

QuoteGo after a profession that really means something George.  Attack something that really is a wrong.  Get the balls to go after the really big fish, the ones that when they ruin a life, they really ruin it!

A "profession" often responsible for misdirection of prosecutorial efforts (sometimes to the point that innocent individuals are imprisoned) is worthy enough of our efforts. Still, we thank you for your suggestion.

QuoteWhy would Dee Moody or any of the others you mentioned want to spend time responding to you?  It's not like you're an important person or something.

If I were them, I wouldn't waste my time either.  Since they're out there giving tests and making a living at it, it looks like they're the successful ones and you're the whining loser.

The National Academy of Sciences seemed to think that George was important enough when they invited him to be a speaker at one of their meetings. I don't think that a lack of relevance is the reason why no one is stepping up to the plate. Perhaps none of those George has challenged have replied because there is no way that they can defend their outrageous claims.
Posted by orolan
 - Mar 13, 2003, 05:19 PM
Thanks George. I became aware of Freddie's plight while living in upper East Tennessee in the early nineties. I was not aware that it was on the web.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 13, 2003, 04:05 AM
orolan,

More information about the case of Freddie Eugene Casey is available here:

http://www.justicedenied.org/eugenecasey.htm

Posted by orolan
 - Mar 12, 2003, 11:42 PM
Thanks for the help there, beech trees. A sad case that one is. But this one is worse. This man, one of about 8 different suspects in a murder case, had a solid alibi. He made the tragic mistake of volunteering to take a polygraph to further prove his innocence. And he failed. For what reason, we don't know, other than the fact that the poly is not reliable. The prosecutor, knowing that he could not use this information in court, blurted out the fact that Freddie had failed a polygraph while cross-examining him. The judge quickly admonished the prosecutor, and instructed the jury to "disregard the remark". Amazingly, since he had thus far only brought out heresy evidence, conjecture, and the conflicting testimony of a few "street snitches", the prosecutor rested his case. The jury found Freddie guilty, and he is now serving a life sentence.
Freddie Eugene Casey #218207
Wallens Ridge Correctional Center
PO Box 759
Big Stone Gap, VA 24219

Posted by beech trees
 - Mar 12, 2003, 06:35 PM
Quote from: Batman on Mar 12, 2003, 04:57 PM
OK, who's next.  My man Septic.  You want me to be civil, well piss off.  How's that for civil?  Why should I be civil to the likes of Beech Trees.  That guy is a first class jerk-off.  He rips all the "pro's" just as hard as I rip the "anti's" (sounds like West Side Story) so why don't you jump his shit about being civil?

Batman,

I think my tone was quite civil when I just recently observed and asked of you:

Quote...it's been entirely too long since you last anonymously threatened to kick my ass. Are you this tough-talking in real lfe, where you might actually be called upon to physically back up your threats of physical violence, or merely behind the keyboard, as you are now? Also, do you *always* fall back to threats and attempts at intimidation when your arguments lack merit, or just on this message board?

I don't see how I could have phrased those questions any more politely, batman.

Also, you asked of another poster:

QuoteOrolan, here's a challange my dear sir.  You mentioned that you know of people who have gone to prison because of polygraph.  Please site the particular cases.  I am anxious to know under what circumstances someone went to prison as a result of taking a polygraph.

See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada. I'd say fourteen years behind bars for a crime one did not commit would qualify, even in your world, as a 'ruined life'.

And you're quite correct-- my life wasn't ruined by my polygraph interrogation. Learning and understanding the deceit, fraud, and straight-up bullshit polygraphers like you get paid to spew on a daily basis served me well when I sat on my slightly-lower-than-my-polygraph-interrogator's-wheeled-chair and silently laughed at the popinjay before me for about 3 hours.

Posted by Batman
 - Mar 12, 2003, 04:57 PM
All it takes is a little Batman input to get the fur flying.  You all have to admit, it FEELS GOOD!

Now back to my first post.  To whomever it was that said I was taking advantage of the death of that young lady at Duke University, and any others that feel the same way, YOU MISSED THE DAMN POINT!

I have no problem with George or any others on this site who want to slam polygraph.  Hell there have been a few days when I've slammed it too.  My issue is with the comments about ruined lives.  Put this shit in perspective folks.  People like George, Capt Whatever the Hell his Name Is, Beech Trees, Skeptic, Seeker, etc, have not had their lives ruined.  Maybe, in their eyes, thier reps have taken a little hit, but ruined lives?  Not hardly.  Think about it, seriously.  Make all the arguments you want about how polygraph does not work, or how countermeasures can not be readily detected, but don't refer to your lives as being ruined.  I'm off my soap-box.

Now as for detecting countermeasures, I don't think I have ever said that I could, unfailingly, detect countermeasures Triple X.  I will tell you that on more than one ocassion I have confronted examinees about the use of countermeasures and they have admitted same.  I'm just as sure that on ocassion I have been unable to detect them.  As I have said in numerous posts, polygraph is not a perfect tool.  As for being gifted, well I'm no John Holmes, but I was once compared favorably to a well hung horse.  Actually, the only gift I have that may apply to you Mr. X is the gift to know a true Bullshitter when I hear one.  You sir, are one of the best.  When I see one of your posts I immediatly get my feet up off the floor.

OK, who's next.  My man Septic.  You want me to be civil, well piss off.  How's that for civil?  Why should I be civil to the likes of Beech Trees.  That guy is a first class jerk-off.  He rips all the "pro's" just as hard as I rip the "anti's" (sounds like West Side Story) so why don't you jump his shit about being civil?

Orolan, here's a challange my dear sir.  You mentioned that you know of people who have gone to prison because of polygraph.  Please site the particular cases.  I am anxious to know under what circumstances someone went to prison as a result of taking a polygraph.  You also mentioned people killing themselves because of polygraph.  Can you provide any additional information about this claim?  If you can't meet the challange, I do not expect you to make a public retraction.

If I have left any of my friends off this post I sincerely apologize.  I'm sure we'll link up in the not too distant furure.  Now that's what I call being civil.

Batman
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 12, 2003, 03:30 PM
Perhaps it is unfair to discuss phrenology and polygraphy in the same post. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest any sort of guilt by association. They are quite different.

For one thing, phrenology doesn't maintain that secrecy of it's techniques must be maintained for the benefit of the public. For another, phrenology isn't portrayed in the media as a nearly perfect predictive tool.  At least it hasn't been portrayed that way for a very long time. No, they are quite different.

-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
 - Mar 12, 2003, 03:14 PM
Quote from: The public on Mar 12, 2003, 10:24 AM
Marty,
What you're saying is that reading, training and actual experience with the polygraph would have no effect on your opinion about polygraph testing.

This is a straw man.  No one has said that such experience wouldn't change anyone's opinion.  It's certainly true, however, that it would not necessarily change opinions, either.  And really, that's beside the point: after all, when we criticize the polygraph we're talking scientific evidence, not anecdotal.  Once you understand the difference, the "experience" you're talking about is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

QuoteIt's bad just because you feel and say it's bad, and that's that.

This statement is entirely counterfactual.  Again, I urge you to actually read George's arguments and research on the subject before you comment on such.  As it is, you're clearly guilty of the same charge you make against Mr. Maschke.

Skeptic
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 12, 2003, 02:58 PM

Quote from: The public on Mar 12, 2003, 10:24 AM
Marty,

Is this what passes for intellect nowadays?  What you're saying is that reading, training and actual experience with the polygraph would have no effect on your opinion about polygraph testing.  It's bad just because you feel and say it's bad, and that's that.

Oh yes, let's not forget to compare it to a religious sect.  Very good.  Joe McCarthy would be proud of you.

No, I was not comparing it to a religious cult, that is your interpretation. What I was doing was pointing out that there are numerous situations in which one does not have to practice particular things to become informed about them which is your assertion. That's simply an incorrect assertion. If one has not trained to be a phrenologist, can one not form an educated opinion about phrenology?   Does one have to be a communist (or member of the John Birch Society) to understand and form opinions of their philosophies?  I think not.

-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
 - Mar 12, 2003, 02:57 PM
Quote from: The Public on Mar 12, 2003, 03:02 AM
Well,  nice way to evade the issue.  We weren't talking about freedom of speech.  We were talking about the extent of George's ignorance.

From the previous couple of comments, I can see that George really has no first-hand knowledge about the polygraph, just his own personal "academic" bias.

Long live logic and reason.


Speaking of which...

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm


Two questions occur:
1) To what "academic" bias are you referring, and perhaps you'd care to give examples where that bias, rather than informed research, guide his position?

2) Why is it "illogical" or "unreasonable" that someone who has extensively researched the polygraph (but is not himself a polygrapher) should speak about the polygraph in an informed manner?

Best Regards,
Skeptic
Posted by viewer
 - Mar 12, 2003, 02:34 PM
A gerbal is an animal that looks like Maschke, only without the glasses.
Posted by anonymouse1
 - Mar 12, 2003, 01:43 PM
a gerbal? what is a gerbal, bonehead?
Posted by Guest
 - Mar 12, 2003, 01:33 PM
Have you ever wondered why George Mashke posts his own picture on each of his postings? Do ya think the boy may have some rather severe psychological problems ? Hey-here's a new topic:

How many of you think George Maschke looks like a Gerbal wearing glasses?

Posted by The public
 - Mar 12, 2003, 12:21 PM
Ouch
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 12, 2003, 12:18 PM
Quote from: The public on Mar 12, 2003, 11:27 AM
George,

Your challenges can't be all that important.  Frankly, nobody seems to care all that much.

You seemingly do. ;)

QuoteWhy am I wasting my time making ad hominem attacks?  You're certainly one to talk - you have created an entire website devoted to ad hominem attacks.

Actually, this website is devoted to exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. I make every effort to avoid making ad hominem attacks. Pointing out misrepresentations publicly made by an individual does not constitute an ad hominem attack on said individual.