- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 11, 2003, 04:22 AMQuote from: PDD-Fed on Jun 10, 2003, 01:03 PM
I wonder if the administrators of this site care that based on the above quote it is highly likely this applicant LIED on his CIA background investigation regarding Driving Under the Influence and that is WHY he has come to this site? Why do you think he is sooo WORRIED about that question?:-/
No such inference may be logically drawn from guyincognito's post. His doubts about whether this question always serves as a "probable-lie control" question are no indication that that he has been deceptive about the subject matter of that question. I was at first very surprised to learn that the FBI uses a question about driving under the influence as a "control" question, as it seems incredibly stupid to assume that everyone who drinks alcohol and drives a motor vehicle has done this. (I've long since ceased to be surprised by incredible stupidity coming from the polygraph community.)
In addition, if I'm not mistaken, the CIA routinely conducts pre-employment polygraph examinations before, not after, a background investigation. So guyincognito had probably not even been questioned about his drinking and driving habits at the time he posted his questions.
QuoteNow here is the probable scenerio as I see it: He has read your book and will attempt countermeasures at his CIA polygraph. Who knows, he MIGHT even be successful. (I highly doubt it).
I believe that contrary to what you broadcast on this site, his examiner will identify the attempt at countermeasures. At that time "guyincognito" will be immediately disqualified due to willful non-cooperation.
Why do you believe that CIA polygraphers (or any polygraphers) have any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector? No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any such ability.
QuoteNow the fact is if he had never read your book, he would have probably admitted to his examiner that he had driven under the influence before he ever took the test and when the case went before the adjudicators, he would have likely been given the benefit of the doubt and received a job offer.
Again, agencies that use a question about driving under the influence as a "control" question assume that everyone has done this.
Moreover, you're pre-supposing that guyincognito would have passed the polygraph. There is no logical basis for this assumption. He may or may not have. But since we know (and the National Academy of Sciences has confirmed) that polygraph screening is completely invalid, and that the probable-lie "control" question "test" used by CIA has an inherent bias against truthtellers, it makes sense for anyone facing a seance with a polygrapher to practice and employ countermeasures.
QuoteSo either this person will be successful in his countermeasures attempt (based on your coaching) and receive a top secret position he knows/believes he is UNQUALIFIED for, or he will be caught and not get the job he might have otherwise been given a waiver for.
Again, your assumption that guyincognito knows/believes he is unqualified for a CIA security clearance and/or employment is unwarranted.
QuoteThis is why I take exception to your repeated assertions that you are doing a "public service" with this website...
PDD-Fed
I don't recall "repeatedly asserting" that I or others involved with AntiPolygraph.org are doing a public service with this website, but I do agree with that which Anonymous has posted above.
Posted by Human Subject
- Jun 10, 2003, 06:16 PMNot to mention the Ricki Lake show seems to rely on polygraphy quite heavily, so a glamorous career in daytime talk television is always a fallback option.
Unfortunately, I think government polygraphers' jobs are pretty safe.
Unfortunately, I think government polygraphers' jobs are pretty safe.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 10, 2003, 02:14 PMBatman,
Although you may have missed the beginning of the season in the northern hemisphere, it is not too late for you to become the Good Humor man...who knows.... your practiced polygraph hokum may even be useful in selling Popsicles....
Although you may have missed the beginning of the season in the northern hemisphere, it is not too late for you to become the Good Humor man...who knows.... your practiced polygraph hokum may even be useful in selling Popsicles....
Posted by orolan
- Jun 10, 2003, 02:09 PMBatman,
Unfortunately, my crystal ball is broken
But I don't think there is or can be a date when the poly just magically disappears. I forsee a gradual decline in usage through policy changes in local LE departments, federal and state agencies or the advent of more accurate instruments like the new "brain wave" machines. It is also possible that legislation may be introduced on the state or federal level to further restrict poly usage, but I wouldn't anticipate a sweeping "ban" any time soon. IMHO.
Unfortunately, my crystal ball is broken
But I don't think there is or can be a date when the poly just magically disappears. I forsee a gradual decline in usage through policy changes in local LE departments, federal and state agencies or the advent of more accurate instruments like the new "brain wave" machines. It is also possible that legislation may be introduced on the state or federal level to further restrict poly usage, but I wouldn't anticipate a sweeping "ban" any time soon. IMHO.Posted by Batman
- Jun 10, 2003, 01:57 PMHey Guys & Girl (That would be my dear Seeker),
I was wondering, can anyone put a date or number on the "polygraph's days are numbered" phrase that is so frequently thrown about by the 'anti's' on this site?
If my days are numbered I'd like to have an idea as to when I need to hit the streets.
Batman
I was wondering, can anyone put a date or number on the "polygraph's days are numbered" phrase that is so frequently thrown about by the 'anti's' on this site?
If my days are numbered I'd like to have an idea as to when I need to hit the streets.
Batman
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 10, 2003, 01:47 PMPDD-Fed,
When George and others provide polygraph countermeasure advice they may well be contributing to two different worthwhile causes: (1) helping innocent examinees pass polygraph examinations, and equally if not more importantly (2) by making the public (citizens, legislators, and media, etc) aware of how utterly nonsensical polygraphy is and how readily subject to manipulation it is, they are creating a scenario and climate ripe for ending this foolishness once a certain critical "exposure" threshold has been crossed... Although, unfortunately I cannot say when, your days as a continued blight on society are numbered...
When George and others provide polygraph countermeasure advice they may well be contributing to two different worthwhile causes: (1) helping innocent examinees pass polygraph examinations, and equally if not more importantly (2) by making the public (citizens, legislators, and media, etc) aware of how utterly nonsensical polygraphy is and how readily subject to manipulation it is, they are creating a scenario and climate ripe for ending this foolishness once a certain critical "exposure" threshold has been crossed... Although, unfortunately I cannot say when, your days as a continued blight on society are numbered...
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Jun 10, 2003, 01:03 PMQuote from: guyincognito on May 07, 2003, 11:51 PMHowdy,
Are the control questions (20 examples) mentioned on pages 84-85 of TLBTLD, if asked, always going to be control quetions? What I'm trying to ask more specifically is, is the question about driving under the influence, always a control question or can it be a relevant question?
I wonder if the administrators of this site care that based on the above quote it is highly likely this applicant LIED on his CIA background investigation regarding Driving Under the Influence and that is WHY he has come to this site? Why do you think he is sooo WORRIED about that question?
:-/Now here is the probable scenerio as I see it: He has read your book and will attempt countermeasures at his CIA polygraph. Who knows, he MIGHT even be successful. (I highly doubt it).
I believe that contrary to what you broadcast on this site, his examiner will identify the attempt at countermeasures. At that time "guyincognito" will be immediately disqualified due to willful non-cooperation.
Now the fact is if he had never read your book, he would have probably admitted to his examiner that he had driven under the influence before he ever took the test and when the case went before the adjudicators, he would have likely been given the benefit of the doubt and received a job offer.
So either this person will be successful in his countermeasures attempt (based on your coaching) and receive a top secret position he knows/believes he is UNQUALIFIED for, or he will be caught and not get the job he might have otherwise been given a waiver for.
This is why I take exception to your repeated assertions that you are doing a "public service" with this website...
PDD-Fed
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 10, 2003, 06:46 AMEastwood,
Considering that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures, there is little to fear in this regard.
However, CIA applicants do have much to fear from the random error associated with polygraph screening -- a procedure that the National Academy of Sciences determined to be completely invalid. As the experiences of "No Such Author," "False +," "Fnord," and "A Disillusioned Polyglot" demonstrate, the CIA is quite willing to sacrifice truthful applicants on the altar of polygraphy.
Considering that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures, there is little to fear in this regard.
However, CIA applicants do have much to fear from the random error associated with polygraph screening -- a procedure that the National Academy of Sciences determined to be completely invalid. As the experiences of "No Such Author," "False +," "Fnord," and "A Disillusioned Polyglot" demonstrate, the CIA is quite willing to sacrifice truthful applicants on the altar of polygraphy.
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 09, 2003, 11:46 PMDear Incognito: Go ahead and use your butt to create reactions - I'm sure CIA has more than enough applicants to weed your ass out in a NY Minute.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jun 02, 2003, 06:57 AMPerhaps because he was being deceptive?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 31, 2003, 02:21 PMI note that three weeks have passed, and "Disclaimer" has not responded to any of the questions I put to him/her. Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by suethem
- May 08, 2003, 07:39 PMDisclaimer,
You wrote, "consider the source..." suggesting that George was some kind of loser FBI wannabe, who got DQ'd from the process due to his lying on his poly, and was now on some un-holy crusade against the polygraph to satisfy his ego.
How about these sources:
Dr. Drew Richardson (FBI Crime LAB)
The National Academy of Sciences
I am truely sorry that regular Americans ask questions and demand answers. I know that it must be discouraging to have your profession likened to witchcraft, tea-leaf reading and other voodoo.
Unfortunately, the polygraph was put to the grade (scientific testing) and failed. What you do for a living has been discredited. I would suggest looking for another type of craft- such as book burning!
To George, Dr. Drew and anyone else who questions...I say- keep up the good work!!
We needed creditable, science based foresic scientists to help LE make valuable determinations. Let's leave witch dunking in the past please!!!
You wrote, "consider the source..." suggesting that George was some kind of loser FBI wannabe, who got DQ'd from the process due to his lying on his poly, and was now on some un-holy crusade against the polygraph to satisfy his ego.
How about these sources:
Dr. Drew Richardson (FBI Crime LAB)
The National Academy of Sciences
I am truely sorry that regular Americans ask questions and demand answers. I know that it must be discouraging to have your profession likened to witchcraft, tea-leaf reading and other voodoo.
Unfortunately, the polygraph was put to the grade (scientific testing) and failed. What you do for a living has been discredited. I would suggest looking for another type of craft- such as book burning!
To George, Dr. Drew and anyone else who questions...I say- keep up the good work!!
We needed creditable, science based foresic scientists to help LE make valuable determinations. Let's leave witch dunking in the past please!!!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 08, 2003, 02:08 PMDisclaimer,
You write:
Why do you refer to my "so-called" book? Do you maintain that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is somehow not a book?
Actually, I have taken more than one polygraph "test." But I did only take one for the FBI. And yes, I failed every single relevant question. At least, that's what my polygrapher reported. I haven't seen the charts yet (I've requested them under the Privacy Act) because the FBI claims it cannot find them. (The Department of Justice has assured me that the Bureau is still looking for my polygraph charts and will send them to me when they eventually find them.)
I am not ashamed to have failed the FBI polygraph. The FBI should be ashamed. I told the truth and was wrongly branded as a liar based on a procedure (CQT polygraphy) that has no scientific basis whatsoever. I've spoken about my experience on national television and in a written statement submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. You know about my failed FBI polygraph because I have made no secret of it. So what's your point? Do you believe that any of my arguments regarding polygraphy should be disregarded simply because I failed an FBI polygraph examination?
The information on countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not based on my or Gino Scalabrini's personal experience, but on documented sources that skeptical readers may check for themselves. Are you suggesting that the countermeasures we describe are ineffective, or that polygraphers can detect them? Perhaps you'd care to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?
I don't know whether I would have ultimately been hired as an FBI agent had I passed the FBI polygraph. I do know that I was considered a high-priority candidate for hire prior to the polygraph, and that my rejection letter from the Bureau indicates that my application was rejected simply because my polygraph results "were not within acceptable parameters." For the FBI, or any other public agency, to make such hiring decisions on the basis of pseudoscientific polygraph chart readings is fundamentally unfair. Do you disagree? If so, please explain.
Perhaps you would care to point out anything I've said or written regarding polygraphy that is false or misleading?
There is no hidden agenda behind this website. Our very public agenda is to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. We're seeking to end the serious and needless harm that misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy is causing to individuals, to the national security, and to public safety. Apparently, our efforts upset you. Perhaps this is some indication of our success. Yes?
On the subject of disclaimers, perhaps every polygraph examiner should formally advise each polygraph subject during the pre-test phase that polygraph "testing" has no scienific basis whatsoever and that it is instead fundamentally dependent on polygrapher deception?
You write:
QuoteHere is the disclaimer that George should add to all his posts and incorporate in his so-called book so that people can evaluate his advice.
Why do you refer to my "so-called" book? Do you maintain that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is somehow not a book?
QuoteGeorge has taken one polygraph test - he failed every relevant question -
Actually, I have taken more than one polygraph "test." But I did only take one for the FBI. And yes, I failed every single relevant question. At least, that's what my polygrapher reported. I haven't seen the charts yet (I've requested them under the Privacy Act) because the FBI claims it cannot find them. (The Department of Justice has assured me that the Bureau is still looking for my polygraph charts and will send them to me when they eventually find them.)
I am not ashamed to have failed the FBI polygraph. The FBI should be ashamed. I told the truth and was wrongly branded as a liar based on a procedure (CQT polygraphy) that has no scientific basis whatsoever. I've spoken about my experience on national television and in a written statement submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. You know about my failed FBI polygraph because I have made no secret of it. So what's your point? Do you believe that any of my arguments regarding polygraphy should be disregarded simply because I failed an FBI polygraph examination?
Quoteand he has never used the countermeasures he advises others to use.
The information on countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not based on my or Gino Scalabrini's personal experience, but on documented sources that skeptical readers may check for themselves. Are you suggesting that the countermeasures we describe are ineffective, or that polygraphers can detect them? Perhaps you'd care to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?
QuoteHe is simply a disgruntled wannabe FBI agent who couldn't make the grade and he prefers to blame his failure on the polygraph.
I don't know whether I would have ultimately been hired as an FBI agent had I passed the FBI polygraph. I do know that I was considered a high-priority candidate for hire prior to the polygraph, and that my rejection letter from the Bureau indicates that my application was rejected simply because my polygraph results "were not within acceptable parameters." For the FBI, or any other public agency, to make such hiring decisions on the basis of pseudoscientific polygraph chart readings is fundamentally unfair. Do you disagree? If so, please explain.
QuoteSo consider the source when you read what he has to say.
Perhaps you would care to point out anything I've said or written regarding polygraphy that is false or misleading?
QuoteHe has a hidden agenda - this site is dedicated to building up his shattered ego.
There is no hidden agenda behind this website. Our very public agenda is to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. We're seeking to end the serious and needless harm that misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy is causing to individuals, to the national security, and to public safety. Apparently, our efforts upset you. Perhaps this is some indication of our success. Yes?
On the subject of disclaimers, perhaps every polygraph examiner should formally advise each polygraph subject during the pre-test phase that polygraph "testing" has no scienific basis whatsoever and that it is instead fundamentally dependent on polygrapher deception?
Posted by orolan
- May 08, 2003, 12:32 PMDisclaimer,
How are you, Mr. Polygrapher? Nice to see you visiting the board. Now that you've been here, how about going back to your censored pro-poly board and brag about how you "told those anti-polys where to stick it".
How are you, Mr. Polygrapher? Nice to see you visiting the board. Now that you've been here, how about going back to your censored pro-poly board and brag about how you "told those anti-polys where to stick it".
Posted by Disclaimer
- May 08, 2003, 12:26 PMHere is the disclaimer that George should add to all his posts and incorporate in his so-called book so that people can evaluate his advice. George has taken one polygraph test - he failed every relevant question - and he has never used the countermeasures he advises others to use.
He is simply a disgruntled wannabe FBI agent who couldn't make the grade and he prefers to blame his failure on the polygraph.
So consider the source when you read what he has to say. He has a hidden agenda - this site is dedicated to building up his shattered ego.
He is simply a disgruntled wannabe FBI agent who couldn't make the grade and he prefers to blame his failure on the polygraph.
So consider the source when you read what he has to say. He has a hidden agenda - this site is dedicated to building up his shattered ego.