In July 1999, I wrote a public statement about my experience with the polygraph. At the time, I wrote under the pseudonym "Captain Jones." Much has happened since then, and I have now revised and expanded my original statement. See, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph." (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml)
George,
I'm truly sorry to hear how your FBI polygraph experience has adversely affected your life, and your employment opportunities. It is sad that a person of your work experience, education, and service to our country had to pay a personal and professional price because of our government's blind faith in a machine that measures physiological responses to questions.
I find it especially disturbing that the Army would turn it's back on you after all your years of service because the issue is too much of a "hot potato." This is truly pathetic, and has lowered my opinion of Army leadership in the MI community.
Good luck to you George, and don't give up the ship!
Kona
PS Isn't Trimarco that knucklehead on Court TV's new series on lie detection? I guess it didn't take him long to cash in after his retirement.
George: Sounds like you let your aligator mouth overload your piss ant ass. What did you think was going to happen? You act like a whining little spoiled brat and then act surprised when people treat you accordingly.
Guest,
There is very little that is certain in this world and there exists perhaps proportionately an even greater degree of uncertainty associated with message board posts. One of the few things we seem to be able to count on here are the mindless retorts coming from the polygraph community as well represented by your last post and almost (if not completely) a uniformly mindless and uncaring analysis when it comes to stories of polygraph victimization.
Anonymous that was very good, you packed your post almost as full of useless words as George does. That means you and he are tied for the Overly Verbose Cry-Baby of the Year award.
Guest, I too think you are an uncaring degenerate. You are an absolute disgrace to the human race. What kind of pathetic simpleton would make ridicule about a situation like George's. If you are a polygrapher, you are a disgrace to the polygraph community. If you are a representation of your peers, you should all be beaten with pipes as far as I'm concerned. I normally would not resort to this kind of comment, but it sickens me when someone like yourself cannot, or will not even try to consider the possibility that just maybe polygraph exams are not as reliable as you think. What is so hard to understand about the fact that these outdated rituals are completely absurd? I'm sure they do work sometimes, but to hold them in such high regard is totally idiotic. In closing I would like to reiterate what a sad piece of ----you are. I'm willing to bet any amount that your service to your community and country, not to mention your life achievements would pale in comparison to George's.-
Guest,
I have to ask - do you think of all of those one-liners yourself? If so, you might be in the running for the Most Ridiculously Impotent Poster of the Year award.
Why don't you try posting something WORTHWHILE? Are you that in need of a supplement to your mediocre existence?
Anonymous
(another Anonymous, mind you. You seem to miss the fact that there are about 20 posters here all using the pseudoname 'Anonymous.' It doesn't make much sense to refer back to 'Anonymous' in a completely different thread as if anyone actually knows which Anonymous you are talking about (example: https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1545.msg12154#msg12154. Exactly which one of us are you referring to? Twoblock didn't seem to know either...)
Yes, anonymous you are right. I really do want to do something more WORTHWHILE. I wish you were here in front of me right now so I could bitch slap your little cry baby ass. Now that would be WORTHWHILE.
Once again, I pose my question to George and hope all 20 Anonymous posters don't jump in again. What did you think would happen? You made yourself a "Hot Potato" all by yourself. And you tried and still try to get all the publicity you possibly can, (and I don't buy all that altruistic BS you try to cover yourself with). Do you really think you are so special that the military would go out on a limb and hire you in spite of all the crap you stirred up?
George,
Do you now publicly admit that you are/where, have always been Capt Jones because the Army has awarded you your Honorable Discharge? Based on what I read, what else could they have done to screw you over?
Congrats on the HD.
Guest, let me ask you something. You post here somewhat frequently yet all of your posts are nothing more than harsh insults.
What exactly is your motivation for reading the posts here and replying in the manner that you do? Are you a polygrapher (not that I really expect you to answer that honestly)? More importantly, answer this - do you really believe that everyone here who claims (s)he did not lie on his/her polygraph actually lied? If not, what is wrong with people expressing concern over the fact that they have been unfairly removed from an application process? Is there something wrong with the fact that some people choose to further themselves in a successful public service position?
Enough with the insults. Obviously I'm not standing anywhere nearby for you to "bitch slap" me, so why not answer and at least let everyone know WHY you post in the manner that you do? I didn't say anything negative or insulting here - return the courtesy.
Quote from: The Shadow on Feb 03, 2004, 01:28 AMGeorge,
Do you now publicly admit that you are/where, have always been Capt Jones because the Army has awarded you your Honorable Discharge? Based on what I read, what else could they have done to screw you over?
Congrats on the HD.
Thank you for your congratulations. I was not concerned that my public identification as the author of the Captain Jones statement could somehow result in a less-than-honorable discharge, if that's what you're suggesting.
Rather, it seemed to me that, as the end of my military service drew near, it was an appropriate time to update my earlier statement, which was by then more than four years old. Over the past several years, I've spoken about my polygraph experience in a variety of public settings, for example, in written testimony (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-2001/maschke-statement.shtml) submitted for the record in a U.S. Senate hearing, at a public meeting (http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/MeetingDisplay2/BCSS-I-00-01-A?OpenDocument) of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, and on CBS 60 Minutes II (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=371.msg1719#msg1719). It seemed appropriate to discard the pseudonym under which I had first written.
Quote from: guest on Feb 03, 2004, 12:29 AMOnce again, I pose my question to George and hope all 20 Anonymous posters don't jump in again. What did you think would happen? You made yourself a "Hot Potato" all by yourself. And you tried and still try to get all the publicity you possibly can, (and I don't buy all that altruistic BS you try to cover yourself with). Do you really think you are so special that the military would go out on a limb and hire you in spite of all the crap you stirred up?
I was most certainly cognizant of the fact that blowing the whistle on a fraudulent practice in which the U.S. Government is heavily invested might have adverse career consequences. But as a cadet, I had subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do. I felt that I could not in good conscience remain silent on this issue. What you call "stirring up crap," I would call telling the truth about polygraphy.
So George, you would have us believe that your "code" is what drove you to build a website and write a book containing a compilation of material, (most of which was already available and had been for twenty years or more). And you state, "I like to think that by working to expose polygraph "testing" for the pseudoscientific quackery that it is, I am perhaps making as significant a contribution to my country as I might have made had I been allowed to continue in government service." The fact is you would have been allowed to continue had you not made such a public spectacle of yourself.
I fail to see any "significant contribution", or for that matter any contribution at all. What I do see is the raving of a petulant ego maniac seeking revenge against a perceived wrong, and trying to convince everyone, (including himself), that he is doing this as a service to mankind.
George,
In reviewing your statement, I found the comment the examiner made about your high moral calibre prior to the polygraph consistent with Matte's description of how examinees are sensitized to the control questions. I guess the theory is that an innocent examinee is likely to be more reactive to the probably lies and put at ease on the relevants (and vice versa for the guilty ones). Assuming the theory true, making that statement based on a check that couldn't have been done at that time is more likely to make one suspicious of the process. The exact opposite of what was intended.
If that happened as you described it was sloppy polygraph work.
Mentioning "control questions" is likely to have perked their ears as well.
A blunt instrument to measure something as critical to ones self identity as integrity.
-Marty
Quote from: guest on Feb 03, 2004, 08:13 PMSo George, you would have us believe that your "code" is what drove you to build a website and write a book containing a compilation of material, (most of which was already available and had been for twenty years or more).
Yes, I acted based on ethical principles. (I'm not sure why you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept.) I think it is fundamentally wrong that the honesty and integrity any citizen should be judged on the basis of pseudoscientifc polygraph chart readings, and I'd like to see that policy changed.
Certainly, much of the information on AntiPolygraph.org was available elsewhere before we went on-line. But finding such information required many hours in a research library. Now, it is readily available to anyone who does a keyword search on "polygraph" or "lie detector."
QuoteAnd you state, "I like to think that by working to expose polygraph "testing" for the pseudoscientific quackery that it is, I am perhaps making as significant a contribution to my country as I might have made had I been allowed to continue in government service." The fact is you would have been allowed to continue had you not made such a public spectacle of yourself.
How do you know this last statement to be true? Do you have inside information? If what you say is true, then it's an admission that the revocation of my security clearance was essentially retaliation for my having exercised my First Amendment right to free speech.
Based on the available evidence, however, I don't think it's as simple as that. My FBI polygraph results were certainly highly prejudicial in the mind of the CCF adjudicator. And had the 902nd MI Gp polygraph section not deemed polygraphing me to be "too hot of a potato," there is still no guarantee that I would have passed any re-test. Indeed, the previous FBI polygraph results would have presumably created a negative bias going into it.
QuoteI fail to see any "significant contribution", or for that matter any contribution at all.
I can see how one whose bread and butter depends on widespread public ignorance and misinformation/disinformation about polygraphy would hold such a view.
QuoteWhat I do see is the raving of a petulant ego maniac seeking revenge against a perceived wrong, and trying to convince everyone, (including himself), that he is doing this as a service to mankind.
Regardless of motives, the more important question is, are our arguments regarding polygraph matters correct? Please don't hesitate to point out anything on AntiPolygraph.org that you believe to be false or misleading. This message board is available for that purpose.
If you choose to register, you'll have the option of editing your posts, receiving e-mail notification when discussion threads are updated, and exchanging private messages with other registered users.
Quote from: Marty on Feb 03, 2004, 08:42 PMGeorge,
In reviewing your statement, I found the comment the examiner made about your high moral calibre prior to the polygraph consistent with Matte's description of how examinees are sensitized to the control questions. I guess the theory is that an innocent examinee is likely to be more reactive to the probably lies and put at ease on the relevants (and vice versa for the guilty ones). Assuming the theory true, making that statement based on a check that couldn't have been done at that time is more likely to make one suspicious of the process. The exact opposite of what was intended.
If that happened as you described it was sloppy polygraph work.
Mentioning "control questions" is likely to have perked their ears as well.
Marty,
I concur with your observations. However, while I don't mean to suggest that such was your intent, I think it's worth noting that attempts to determine why an invalid test yielded inaccurate results are unlikely to repay the undertaking. The shortcomings in the administration of my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination are just a few examples of the virtually infinite number of uncontrolled -- and uncontrollable -- potentially confounding variables that beset
all CQT polygraph examinations. Please forgive the crude metaphor, but the problems you've pointed out are but several discernable turds floating in a polygraph punch bowl that is filled to the brim with raw sewage. :P
QuoteA blunt instrument to measure something as critical to ones self identity as integrity.
Agreed! :)
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 02, 2004, 03:14 AMIn July 1999, I wrote a public statement about my experience with the polygraph. At the time, I wrote under the pseudonym "Captain Jones." Much has happened since then, and I have now revised and expanded my original statement. See, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph." (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml)
On the one hand you have George, blaming everyone but himself for his failures, and on the other hand you have this man, the one George blames the most. Which one sounds more like a mental patient? George!
Jack Trimarco & Associates
Polygraph / Investigations, Inc.
9454 Wilshire Blvd., 6th Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Phone: 310-247-2637
Fax: 805-383-9973
Email: Jtrimarco@aol.com
Major Case Involvement Dr. Wen Ho Lee Espionage Case; The "Unabomber"; "Whitewater"; Oklahoma City Bombing; World Trade Center Bombing (1993); numerous cases involving classified foreign terrorists, espionage, proliferation, economic espionage, national information infrastructure and perception management; "Fed buster"; Princess Cruises Extortion; Gerald Gallego Serial Killer; Bank of America, Davis, CA hostage standoff; V.A. Hospital, Brentwood, CA hostage standoff; Enrique Camarena assassination; Top 1- fugitive, Claude Dallas, Top 10 Fugitive, Daniel Barney; Charles Keating Fraud Investigation; Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103; Dr. Peter Lee Espionage Case; L.A.P.D. Rampart Scandal.
Polygraph Experience Former Inspector General, D.O.E. Polygraph Program,Polygraph Unit Chief, F.B.I. Los Angeles Field Office 1991-1998. Conducted more than 1100 polygraph examinations in connection with F.B.I. investigations. Selected by the U.S. Department of Justice and the F.B.I. to conduct polygraph examinations in sensitive intelligence matters and criminal investigations throughout the U.S. and abroad. Formerly held top-secret security clearance. Established private practice in 1998. Conducted more than 60 seminars/presentations on interviewing and interrogation and polygraph related matters throughout the United States. Conducted training at the F.B.I. Academy, C.I.A., and U.S. Justice Department.
Polygraph Testimony As An Expert Witness California vs. Renee Lloyd (1993) State of California Superior & Court, Rancho Cucamonga, California; U.S. vs. Noe Orozo Viveros (1994) U.S. District Court, Central District of California, U.S. vs. Samson Gillette (1999), U.S. District Courtt, Central District of California, California vs. Catarino Gonzales (2001) Sate of California, Superior Court, Los Angeles. State of California vs. Gary Bearman (2003).
Professional Memberships American American Board of Forensic Examiners, American Polygraph Association, Advanced and Specialized Polygraph Examiner, California Association of Polygraph Examiners, American Association of Police Polygraphists, California Association of Hostage Negotiators, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Diplomat, Board Certified Forensic Examiner of the American Board of Forensic Examiners, Fellow, College American College of Forensic Examiners- Lifetime Member, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS); California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, National Association of Legal Investigators (NALI), Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI), Southern California Fraud Investigators Association (SCFIA), Beverly Hills Bar Association, Ventura County Bar Association, Orange County Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Fernando Valley Bar Association, Certified Investigative Professionals Inc., (CIPI), Professional Investigators of California (PICA), and Forensic Consultants Association.
Education Montana State University at Billings, B.S., Psychology, 1976, High Honors; Montana State University at Billings Graduate School, Psychology, 1976-77; Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Alabama, attended Graduate School, Psychophysiology, 1990 (no graduate degrees).
Employment United States Air Force (USAF), 1967-71, USAF "Airman of the Year" – Italy, 1968; Yellowstone County Deputy Sheriff, Billings, Montana, Patrolman 1971-73; Detective 1973-78; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Special Agent, 1978-1998, Received numerous commendations for exceptional performance. Nominated twice for F.B.I. Medal of Valor.
F.B.I. Polygraph Unit Chief (Los Angeles- Retired) Former Inspector General, Polygraph Program, U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Counterintelligence, Ventura County District Attorneys Office (Forensic Polygraph Examiner), Certified Polygraph Examiner (APA), California State Private Investigator #20970, authorized to carry a concealed weapon by County of Ventura, State of California, Ventura County Public Defenders Office, Ventura County Sheriffs Department, Orange County Public Defenders Office, U.S. Attorneys Office, (Central District of California.)
Areas of Expertise F.B.I. Polygraph Examiner, F.B.I. Hostage Negotiator, F.B.I. EXPERTISE Psychological Profiler, F.B.I. Defensive Tactics/Firearms Instructor, F.B.I. S.W.A.T. Team Member, F.B.I. Interrogation Instructor and Homicide Investigation Instructor.
Polygraph Training Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, 14-week polygraph course. Attended 32 polygraph training seminars conducted by the F.B.I. or professional polygraph associations across the U.S. (1990-2003). Attended numerous Federal, State and Local Agencies, National and State Polygraph Associations, private and professional groups.
You can be the reincarnation of William Marston for all I care. What I do know is the polygraph is easily beaten when one uses very simple to perform, and virtually undetectable, countermeasures. That's a fact; been there, done that.
Guest,
You write:
QuoteOn the one hand you have George, blaming everyone but himself for his failures, and on the other hand you have this man, the one George blames the most. Which one sounds more like a mental patient? George!
...
I told the truth and was wrongly accused of deception based on a procedure that has no scientific basis. For what failure(s) do you think I should I be blaming myself?
I do not think that Jack Trimarco is primarily to blame for what happened to me. The problem is not so much that he made any mistake in administering the polygraph, but rather that the entire polygraph procedure is without validity. Any polygrapher might have obtained similarly wrong results.
Moreover, I did not imply that Mr. Trimarco has any mental disorder, nor do I understand the basis of your suggestion that I do.
Finally, I reiterate my invitation to you to point out anything on AntiPolygraph.org that you believe to be false or misleading.
Quote from: Kona on Feb 02, 2004, 06:39 AM
...Isn't Trimarco that knucklehead on Court TV's new series on lie detection? I guess it didn't take him long to cash in after his retirement.
Kona,
I haven't seen the show, and thus can't comment on it, but yes, Trimarco is the host of the Court TV game show "Fake Out" that debuted in October 2003:
http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/fake_out/
It is possible that polygraph screening may be validated. The National Academy of Sciences certainly suggests efforts to do so. When and if it is I hope the childish and antagonistic attitudes of the presumed polygraphers who post here are not representative of the profession.
-Marty
Marty,
Where did the National Academy of Sciences endorse efforts to "validate" polygraph screening or suggest that such might meet with success?
On the contrary, the NAS found polygraph screening to be completely invalid and even a danger to national security, and recommended against its continued use by federal agencies. With regard to future prospects, the NAS concluded (at p. 213 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/213.html")):
QuoteFuture Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygaph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 06, 2004, 04:48 AMMarty,
Where did the National Academy of Sciences endorse efforts to "validate" polygraph screening or suggest that such might meet with success?
On the contrary, the NAS found polygraph screening to be completely invalid and even a danger to national security, and recommended against its continued use by federal agencies. With regard to future prospects, the NAS concluded (at p. 213 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/213.html")):
On page 226. NAS recommends better controlled studies to eliminate various biases and determine what the polygraph can actually achieve. They are properly distressed at the wide range of estimates of accuracy and are of the general opinion current estimates overstate the actual accuracy. They believe polygraphy may be improved, but not greatly.
Matte relates an interesting story where 21 policemen were given a multiple choice test in a class they were taking for advancement. The test was handed back the next day (after recording the original answers) and each person corrected their own test. It turned out 7 of the 21 changed wrong answers in the process. Later, it was announced to the class that some individuals cheated and that their jobs were at stake. A subset of the class was then polygraphed.
The charade was to set up more realistic conditions to test the polygraph. For inexplicable reasons, only 2 of the cheaters were polygraphed along with around ten innocent cops.
This kind of test on a larger scale might be one line of attack to improve the polygraph.
It wasn't mentioned whether the cheaters were actually disciplined.
-Marty
George, there are few things as painful as not being believed by someone who's opinion is important to you. To have the entire US government question your integrity when you dedicated your professional life to serving it must have been a terribly difficult experience. If it makes any differerence, I believe you 100%. I commend you on your perserverence. You are a great American in my mind.
Americans who are fluent in Arabic and Persian are a precious and scarce national resource these days. I don't think most people have a clue how difficult it is for a native English speaker to become expert in those languages. The failure of our government to harness your abilities is a loss to us all.
Jeremy
Jeremy,
Thank you for your kind words. My experience was indeed (and to some extent still is) terribly difficult.
Regrettably, our government's willfull disregard of the overwhelming scientific evidence against polygraphy ensures that the injustices that I experienced continue to be repeated against others.
If you know anyone who might someday face a polygraph examination, I hope you'll pass on to them what you've learned here.
George,
After reading Matte's book on examination and cross examination of experts, IMO it is in large part a marketing tool. While I find much of his work interesting it is really tuned to specific incident polygraphy and he provides scripts that suggest lawyers using his techniques are more likely to prevail in gaining admissibility of exam results.
I found his scripts self serving since he doesn't address ways his poly techniques could be effectively attacked in court.
Also, Matte's short video into to his CD book version is worth seeing. It brought to mind Cialdini's works on persuasion.
On the positive side, I do believe his techniques may really address some of the variations that yield false positives (and negatives) on specific incident polys. Unfortunately, the techniques he describes assume naive examinees and may well fail more often with non-naive examinees let alone intentional use of CM's. And non-naive examinees are becoming a lot more common.
-Marty
George, are you suing? Fill us in on legal aspects of this case. Thanks and good luck...
Quote from: xyz on Feb 08, 2004, 07:51 PMGeorge, are you suing? Fill us in on legal aspects of this case. Thanks and good luck...
NO. George won't sue, he will complain but never sue because he knows the discovery process would bring out all the proof that he was and is in fact a liar.
Quote from: xyz on Feb 08, 2004, 07:51 PMGeorge, are you suing? Fill us in on legal aspects of this case. Thanks and good luck...
I have not filed suit. I considered joining the ongoing federal polygraph lawsuits (http://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#zaid) that Mark Zaid has filed, and have provided a supporting affidavit, but the primary relief sought (reinstatement of the plaintiff's applications) is not something I seek. I no longer wish to work for the FBI. And in the case of the Army, security clearance determinations are not reviewable by the courts.
Wow, if I were you, I would seriously consider filing a separate suit. It sounds like the FBI poly dopes have cast serious and unsupported aspersions on your character that prevent you from getting govt jobs, cut your military career short, and may effect your civilian employment oppurtunities as well.
I'm not an attorney but this sounds actionable to me. You should talk w/ a civil rights/employment lawyer. You could sue for damages with the lawyer taking a percentage of any reward (no expenses for you if the case does not succeed). Also, you could possibly ask the court to bar govt from using polys in any future hiring processes.
This might be another good front for attacking and getting rid of this ridiculous nonsense. Courts are already aware of the unreliability of polys, plus the NAS findings, etc., etc.
You should really consider this. Also, the last filing in Zaid's lawsuit appeared to be in 2001. What's the current status of that suit?
I was kind of hoping for a response because I really don't understand why you wouldn't pursue legal action.
Would you not want to sue for damages? If not, why not? Have you talked w/ a lawyer and been discouraged for some legal or financial reason? Wouldn't this be another way to attack use and acceptance of poly's (one of your stated goals)?
Please expound....
xyz,
No offense intended, but I hope you'll understand my reluctance to discuss my legal options with anonymous strangers on a public message board. I've already posted all I care to in this regard.
One observation I can make though, is that I think you are overly optimistic about the willingness of lawyers to represent clients suing the federal government over national security policy matters on a contingency fee basis. ;)
Also, to the best of my knowledge, the federal polygraph lawsuits represented by Mark Zaid are still in the discovery phase.
George and whomever else. I took my first poly while in high school well prior to the Poly-employment act. I had no problems and got the job. Soon after, I joined the military and had no cause to take a poly, so it wasn't an issue. I completed my service and sought a job in national security. I was offered a poly by a federal agency. I checked this site out prior to the poly. I thought then that it was a site full of grumblings by people who for whatever reason couldn't pass a poly and vented here. I admitted to my polygrapher that I went to this site and Williams’s site. He cautioned me simply not to do anything but answer the questions. I was tested, passed (wish all my days were that easy) by following the directions and answering truthfully. I have been fascinated ever since with polygraph and this site in particular. Mr. Maschke, I complement you on your vast knowledge. You are not stupid. But I also note that this site is something of a temple to your ego. Polygraphs are used in various fashions and ways, by many agencies for national security screening. While not perfect, they are useful serve a purpose. Thanks to this site, which you claim to have built to stop fraud and pseudoscience, the entire world, terrorists and enemies of America, now have techniques (questionable if they are effective) to use in an attempt subvert a system of national security. I find it haunting to think that if one terrorist is caught and states he got so far thanks to "The lie behind the lie detector", you and some of the posters on this board will cheer as the terrorist was successful at exposing the "Junk science". If my son or daughter was assaulted by a sex offender who used your techniques, you would do well to hide, as I would sue you. I think it is clear to most who read this board that you have an issue and that steps could have been taken within the government to correct them, had you used the system. It is clear to me that you lost your clearance and position with the LA police because you are someone who is more aptly a loose cannon than a hot potato.
I have never used countermeasures and never had trouble with any polygraph I was administered. None of my experiences were anything close to many of the posts on this board. I have found my polygraphers to be professional and have yet to meet a colleague who can say any differently.
You lost your shot at the FBI. Where I am initially sorry, I have little wonder why, as through this site, you may not have been positively evaluated as fit.
So I close with a few questions:
1. How many polygraphs have you taken? With what agencies?
2. What countermeasures have you applied?
3. Since you seem to spend a great deal of time on this site, how are you employed? I recall seeing somewhere you worked for the Iranian intersection, which I find very interesting, considering the nature of this site and the Iranian government's relation with the U.S.
4. You stated that you "as a cadet" value the creed to not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. Were you ever a Military cadet? If so, when, where? And could this self professed honesty be the real reason you didn't get hired by the FBI and are considered "too hot a potato"? Did you honestly admit anything which caused the government not to want you in access to classified?
Good luck on this personal mission of yours. But from your postings, I'm glad I don’t share an office with you.
I too thought this site was full of whiners and ddn't even glance at it twice before my polygraph Boy was I wrong. I was a sucker who "trusted" the system.
Congrats, xmilitary. You were on the right side of the coin toss.
I'm not going to be an apologists or try to defend George; he can do that quite well himself. I will compliment George on the extensive amount of information on his site. I wouldn't have believed any of it had I not had a similar experience with the polygraph.
You state that George could have had his issues resolved had he worked within the system. What a joke. Do you really believe that???
As far as the polygraph being used to screen terrorists and the hypothetical suggestion that a terrorist may use knowledge from this site to beat the polygraph, and if so somehoe George should be held morally responsible is ludicrious. The fact that idiots in the government still rely on the ploygraph is what is morally reprehsnsible.
You're right. It would be bad if a sex offender used info from this site to beat the system. Sounds like the system is broke if it is so easilly beaten. For you to attempt to blame that on George and this site is pretty weak. But it would be even worse for an innocent person to be incorrectly accused due to this junk science. Such happens every day in the national security screening program. If our national security is truly dependant on polygraph screeing results then we as a country are totally screwed.
xmilitary,
Sorry for the delay in replying to your comments. I had limited Internet access over the past three weeks. Responses to your remarks follow.
Quote from: xmilitary on Feb 03, 2005, 08:52 PMGeorge and whomever else. I took my first poly while in high school well prior to the Poly-employment act. I had no problems and got the job. Soon after, I joined the military and had no cause to take a poly, so it wasn't an issue. I completed my service and sought a job in national security. I was offered a poly by a federal agency. I checked this site out prior to the poly. I thought then that it was a site full of grumblings by people who for whatever reason couldn't pass a poly and vented here.
Do you still hold that point of view?
QuoteI admitted to my polygrapher that I went to this site and Williams's site. He cautioned me simply not to do anything but answer the questions. I was tested, passed (wish all my days were that easy) by following the directions and answering truthfully.
Congratulations on passing your polygraph. I am glad to know that the "complete honesty" approach (suggested in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf)) worked for you, and that you were not subjected to retaliation for your candor. Others have not always been so fortunate.
QuoteI have been fascinated ever since with polygraph and this site in particular.
Why this fascination? Your use of the word "polygraph" as an abstract noun synonymous with "polygraphy" suggests that perhaps you were fascinated enough to become a polygrapher yourself, as the word is rarely used by anyone outside the polygraph community in this sense.
QuoteMr. Maschke, I complement you on your vast knowledge. You are not stupid. But I also note that this site is something of a temple to your ego.
Why is that? What would you suggest I do differently?
QuotePolygraphs are used in various fashions and ways, by many agencies for national security screening. While not perfect, they are useful serve a purpose.
But polygraph screening
has no scientific basis and is
without validity. The reliance of these agencies on polygraphy is misplaced.
QuoteThanks to this site, which you claim to have built to stop fraud and pseudoscience, the entire world, terrorists and enemies of America, now have techniques (questionable if they are effective) to use in an attempt subvert a system of national security.
While America's adversaries have been fooling the polygraph since well before this website went on-line (2000), it is true that AntiPolygraph.org has made information about polygraph procedure and countermeasures more readily available than ever before. We provide this information to afford innocent persons a means of protecting themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, not to help liars beat the system. Unfortunately, there is no way to provide this information to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to all.
I suspect that you would likely agree with the views expressed by DoDPI instructor Paul M. Menges in his article, "Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public"
(Polygraph, Vol. 31 [2002], No. 4, pp. 254-262). See my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public" (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml) for a rebuttal.
QuoteI find it haunting to think that if one terrorist is caught and states he got so far thanks to "The lie behind the lie detector", you and some of the posters on this board will cheer as the terrorist was successful at exposing the "Junk science".
On the contrary, I think it would be deeply regrettable if it were to take such an incident to compel our government to confront the truth that polygraphy is junk science.
QuoteIf my son or daughter was assaulted by a sex offender who used your techniques, you would do well to hide, as I would sue you.
On what legal theory would you base your suit?
QuoteI think it is clear to most who read this board that you have an issue and that steps could have been taken within the government to correct them, had you used the system.
What is the "issue" that you believe it is "clear to most" that I have? And what are the steps that you believe "could have been taken within the government to correct them [sic]?"
QuoteIt is clear to me that you lost your clearance and position with the LA police because you are someone who is more aptly a loose cannon than a hot potato.
Why is that?
QuoteI have never used countermeasures and never had trouble with any polygraph I was administered. None of my experiences were anything close to many of the posts on this board. I have found my polygraphers to be professional and have yet to meet a colleague who can say any differently.
Congratulations. Many others have not been so fortunate.
QuoteYou lost your shot at the FBI. Where I am initially sorry, I have little wonder why, as through this site, you may not have been positively evaluated as fit.
I passed all other employment-related tests that I took prior to my FBI polygraph. My FBI HQ file indicates that my application was terminated based solely on my polygraph results, without any further investigation.
QuoteSo I close with a few questions:
1. How many polygraphs have you taken? With what agencies?
Please re-read my statement.
Quote2. What countermeasures have you applied?
None.
Quote3. Since you seem to spend a great deal of time on this site, how are you employed? I recall seeing somewhere you worked for the Iranian intersection, which I find very interesting, considering the nature of this site and the Iranian government's relation with the U.S.
My current employment is no business of yours. While I have never heard of "the Iranian intersection" (perhaps you meant the Iranian Interests Section?), I can confirm that I am not now, nor have I ever been, an agent of Iran (or, for that matter, any other foreign government), as you have insinuated.
Quote4. You stated that you "as a cadet" value the creed to not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. Were you ever a Military cadet? If so, when, where?
As I mentioned in my statement, I received a 2-year Army ROTC scholarship in 1987 and was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in 1989. The university I attended was UCLA.
QuoteAnd could this self professed honesty be the real reason you didn't get hired by the FBI and are considered "too hot a potato"? Did you honestly admit anything which caused the government not to want you in access to classified?
I have received no indication that such is the case. My FBI polygraph report, as well as the rejection letter I received from the Bureau, indicates that my application was terminated because of the polygraph results, and not on any admission made.
QuoteGood luck on this personal mission of yours. But from your postings, I'm glad I don't share an office with you.
Somehow, I doubt the sincerity of your good luck wishes. From your post, I suppose I should also be glad not to share an office with you.
I think it is a wonderful story to share with everyone else, because it exposes so much. I believe every word of it. No one would take the effort to do so much if not to help deal with the frustration.
Wouldn't be awesome to have a site for all doctors and businesses who do so much wrong and of course for those who do so well.
Your book is awesome and I wished I read it 2 days ago before going to the polygraph test, because it described everything I experienced exactly. I will keep my fingers crossed and hopefully I pass it. If I don't, I know that there is someone better than me that didn't.
Sincerely,
Nina
PS: there are always those who are capable to bad-mouth everything. A few years ago, when I won the teacher of the year award, you wouldn't believe all the accusations. I learned my lesson and never accepted the other ones!!
George,
After reading your very sad story about being disqualified as a potential candidate for the FBI due to polygraph results, I am somewhat stunned as to how and why this could have happened to what appears to be a very promising candidate for the position.
It seems unfortunate that someone such as yourself, especially with your military background in counterintelligence and investigative techniques could be disqualified in this manner, and without merit. This whole unfortunate episode has left me with feelings of anger, frustration, confusion and above all, contempt.
If a potential applicant such as yourself applied for a prestigious law enforcement agency like the FBI and were turned down based solely on the results of the polygraph, one would think you might have a better chance at applying for the Central Intelligence Agency. After all, the CIA continuosly recruits and trains many applicants who possess the knowledge to be able to communicate in a foreign language, especially Arabic and Farsi.
Your military career history is something to be truly admired. That alone should have had recruiters from any top law enforcement agency sit up and take notice the moment you filled out any application.
This is a very informative site and has already confirmed for me what I always suspected, that the polygraph, along with the investigative procedures before and after the polygraph is administered, is nothing but voodoo garbage.
As for the negative posts which accompany this thread, (I won't mention names) I can only say, leave the childish name-calling to some other teenage chat site or something.
Mike_C.
Mike C.,
Thank you for your words of encouragement. At this point, however, I have no interest in working for any organization that relies on polygraph screening.
False and misleading? well George, let's start with the crap you spread about the FBI being referred to as "OGA". The FBI is ALWAYS referred to as the FBI. OGA on the other hand......well now. Can we assume that yet another Government agency in addition to ALL the others rejected you as well?
Oh, by the way, in another post you state you no longer wished to work for the FBI. Be honest George. You never had the decision to make. They made it and didn't want you.
uiop,
Considering that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the only federal agency whose pre-employment polygraph I failed, I think it is a safe bet that when Brock Butterfield used the term "OGA," he was referring to the FBI. ;-)
Here is the relevant portion of my statement (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml):
QuoteWhile the 902nd MI's polygraph section opined that "the issues are pertinent for a poly" but that polygraphing me would be "too hot of a potato," the Defense Security Service's polygraph division (S32) had a completely opposite view. In a memorandum to "Janet" dated 30 October 2000, acting chief Brock W. Butterfield had written:
"Per your request, I have reviewed this case to determine if sufficient information was developed upon which to construct a polygraph examination. It does not appear that specific allegations have been provided by the other government agency (OGA) [that is, the FBI] upon which to recommend the conduct of a DSS polygraph examination. Subject's failure of the OGA polygraph examination was in the area of pre-employment screening. DSS conducts specific issue polygraph examinations to resolve adjudicatively significant issues that have been corroborated. That does not appear to be the case with this Subject. Based on what has been presented, it seems unlikely that we will receive any specific allegations. Thus, a DSS polygraph examination appears inappropriate."
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 11, 2005, 05:51 AMuiop,
Considering that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the only federal agency whose pre-employment polygraph I failed, I think it is a safe bet that when Brock Butterfield used the term "OGA," he was referring to the FBI. ;-)
Mr. Maschke,
The talk in polygraph circles is that you also failed a polygraph examination conducted by CIA (and possibly one by the LAPD). Is this information incorrect?
Respectfully,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 11, 2005, 08:33 PM
Mr. Maschke,
The talk in polygraph circles is that you also failed a polygraph examination conducted by CIA (and possibly one by the LAPD). Is this information incorrect?
Respectfully,
Nonombre
George must be pretty famous in polygraph circles. Hypothetically, if he had failed a CIA polygraph (not mentioned previously by him) then somebody broke the Privacy Act.
I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate.
Then again, not unusual for asshole polygraphers to break the law, since they themselves are in fact "above the law."
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 11, 2005, 08:33 PM
Mr. Maschke,
The talk in polygraph circles is that you also failed a polygraph examination conducted by CIA (and possibly one by the LAPD). Is this information incorrect?
Respectfully,
Nonombre
Nonombre,
I did not mention it in my public statement, nor have I publicly mentioned it elsewhere before now, but in the early 1990s I twice applied for a graduate student internship with the CIA. Both times, I passed initial written tests and was interviewed at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. As part of the process, I submitted to a polygraph screening examination each time. Each time, I sat for only one polygraph session, and each time was told the result was inconclusive. I was not accused of deception or subjected to a post-test interrogation in either case. Both times, I was asked if I'd be willing to come back for a follow-up examination, and both times I agreed.
In both cases, I was not offered the internship following interviews with managers in the Directorate of Intelligence. I recall that one supervisor, apparently not very impressed with my decision to major in Near Eastern languages, suggested that intelligence analysts don't really need to be fluent in the languages of the countries they report on, remarking "We have people to translate things for us." I was bewildered by that remark. I was also introduced to the person in charge of producing biographical reports on prominent political, military, and economic figures of a particular Near Eastern country. He was unable to read a newspaper in that country's language. I hope attitudes have changed regarding the importance of language skills at Langley.
In any event, as I mentioned, the CIA's polygraphers did not accuse me of deception and were actually quite courteous. I was left with the impression that I was not offered the internships based on my interviews, not the polygraph. Indeed, had I "failed" the polygraph during my first internship application, I doubt I would have been interviewed for an internship a second time.
It's possible that in the post-Ames polygraph crackdown at CIA, my charts were re-evaluated and scored as "Deception Indicated." But no such indication was made to me.
On a side note, during one of my trips to Langley, while speaking with other applicants at a motel in Tyson's Corner where we were staying, I was surprised to hear from one applicant for employment, not an internship, how she had been harshly grilled about her sex life and accused of lying. She found it all the more outrageous because she was a rape victim, and had been interrogated about that, too. I could hardly believe it, because my experience had been so different. I was not asked any sex-related questions on either occasion.
As for failing an LAPD polygraph, yes, LAPD polygrapher Ervin Youngblood, who had the foreknowledge that I had previously failed my pre-employment polygraph with the FBI, accused me of using countermeasures. It didn't matter that at the time, I did not even know what countermeasures are. I have discussed all this in greater detail in my public statement.
In any event, it is crystal clear that in the memo by the acting chief of the Defense Security Service's polygraph section that he was referring to my FBI pre-employment polygraph. My Army records, released to me under the Privacy Act, include no communications from either the CIA or the LAPD.
If "the talk in polygraph circles" is that I failed a CIA polygraph, then, as Jeffery indicated, it appears that someone has violated the Privacy Act.
To all of you zealouts who thing George is making some outlandish statement against you without cause:
I ask, what say you to his willingness to answer a straight-forward question? Did he not provide full disclosure? Has this particular question been posed earlier? No? Where have the bashers reclused to?
See that, he has been more forward than most of you pros have been. When you find it within yourselves to do the same, please return. If not, go to hell.
An afterthought:
Nonombre wrote:
QuoteThe talk in polygraph circles is that you also failed a polygraph examination conducted by CIA (and possibly one by the LAPD). Is this information incorrect?
To those of us that have been the oh so rare, induced, solicited, caused, purposeful, incited false positive I ask of which circle do you speak? The circle of tyrants?
Nonombre,
Can you let us in on anything else that is spoken of in "polygraph circles"? It would seem to me that a polygraph examiner making negative comments about George doesn't make George look bad – it makes the examiner look bad instead.
I still can't help but think that if polygraphy was a scientifically valid test then no one would give a rat's ass about who was speaking out against it or what they were saying.
As I have mentioned before, part of my job as a police officer involves traffic crash reconstruction. If there was a web site claiming that the speed of a vehicle could not be determined by measuring the yaw mark it left on the road prior to hitting a tree, I wouldn't give a moment's thought to it. Newtonian physics can stand the heat because they are valid scientific principles.
I couldn't care less if someone put up a web site advising people to play certain songs on their car radio or paint their car blue in order to foul up the yaw mark measurements – I might laugh at it but it certainly wouldn't bother me.
Why are so many polygraph examiners so upset with the web site in general and with George in particular?
3 of my 4 FBI polygraphers told me that George has confessed to lying about things and that this is a matter of record. so it seems he is quite legendary in at least FBI circles
Quote from: Bill Crider on Aug 14, 2005, 03:02 AM3 of my 4 FBI polygraphers told me that George has confessed to lying about things and that this is a matter of record. so it seems he is quite legendary in at least FBI circles
and I suspect that is why this antipolygraph "movement" has never picked up any steam in places like congress (where it really matters). I believe that at the end of the day, when the witnesses leave the chamber, Mr. Mashke's dossier is tossed on the table, read by the committee members, and he and his minions are summarily and appropriately dismissed.
Quote from: Bill Crider on Aug 14, 2005, 03:02 AM3 of my 4 FBI polygraphers told me that George has confessed to lying about things and that this is a matter of record. so it seems he is quite legendary in at least FBI circles
If anyone has read the personal statement of "Police Sergeant" on the home page of this web site, you would have seen that it was also reported to my agency that I had confessed to lying. In my situation they were told I confessed to lying about stealing army equipment. It simply wasn't true, but the report was twisted around enough so it sounded plausible. I didn't get that job. A "confession" in a polygraph examination is not always what a reasonable person would deem a confession in any other setting.
Needless to say, hearing that FBI polygraph examiners believe George confessed to lying doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
Even if George lied on every single answer that doesn't change the basic accuracy of the polygraph; I know from my own experience that the polygraph is inaccurate to the point of uselessness. When the polygraph community answers questions about their profession with personal attacks they discredit themselves as well as their side of the argument.
Quote from: Bill Crider on Aug 14, 2005, 03:02 AM3 of my 4 FBI polygraphers told me that George has confessed to lying about things and that this is a matter of record. so it seems he is quite legendary in at least FBI circles
Bill,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I never confessed to lying because I did not lie. Moreover, my FBI file, which I obtained under the Privacy Act (minus my polygraph charts, which the FBI avers it cannot locate), contains no such allegation.
If anyone else has been told by a polygraph examiner that I confessed to lying, I would be grateful if you would provide me the details (individual making the allegation, agency involved, what was specifically was said, etc.).
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 14, 2005, 03:21 AM
and I suspect that is why this antipolygraph "movement" has never picked up any steam in places like congress (where it really matters). I believe that at the end of the day, when the witnesses leave the chamber, Mr. Mashke's dossier is tossed on the table, read by the committee members, and he and his minions are summarily and appropriately dismissed.
If Congressman had any balls whatsoever, they'd (in an undercover capacity of course) apply for a job that required a Polygraph. If all 535 did this, I'm sure we'd see some traction.
Sgt.1107,
Your recent last two posts regarding why are so many polygraph examiners upset with this web site and how certain polygraphists seem to spend so much time on this board posting personal attacks while at the same time discrediting themselves, is by far, one of the best responses I've seen to date.
Surely, out of the many thousands of viewers who read this site, more than one person must have figured this out by now. If the polygraph testing system is "supposedly" so "accurate," then we wouldn't see one objectionable posting from anyone within the polygraph community. Instead, they would just laugh it off as a bunch of paranoid fools seeking answers and justification out of something to hide. It just tells me, they're defensive for all the reasons we, as an impartial, intelligent, suspicious, logical thinking human species have suspected all along.
And Nonombre, I sincerely hope you don't think this is in any way a personal attack against you as a polygraphist, as this is not my intent. If you feel offended that the majority of posters on this site haven't bought into the "big lie," my apologies, but I'm sure you can understand the obvious concern regarding validity and credibility to the "profession."
As for your posts, personally, I find them quite beneficial and very informative. I really do. I must commend you for stepping up the plate in genuine objectionable arguments, when others in your community would rather sit back, read and not participate in the topics presented. I sincerely believe your contributions to this site are an asset to the discussion in general, which makes very interesting reading.
Regards,
mike_C.
Hi there..!!!
After reading the whole article:
http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
I can only say that I'm very impress with George qualifications..!!! He's a real asset for the INTEL community.
If the FBI founds any deceptions/lies in anyones exam, why not conduct a deeper BI...??? In the case of the drug questions, if they found "deception" Why they do not conduct a Urine/Blood analisys...???
I was also checking the web site of this Jacko Trimarco http://www.jacktrimarco.com/ what a poser...!!!!
He must be ashame of being such a liar and now profiting of his lie-machine...!!!
I think the FBI is a great agency but jokers like this Trimarco guy and all the other Polygraphers give the agency a bad reputation. Pitty..... :(
(https://antipolygraph.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacktrimarco.com%2Fimages%2Fpolygraph_r1_c1.jpg&hash=8732c2027bfb702c5310b5714d84e53d7f4f7c0b)
this guy trimaco has his own tv showw lol.. all about deception tas funny
In 1992 I was accused of stealing $600 cash from The Lane County Custody Referee's Office. I didn't do it, but someone did. I eagerly took a polygraph test to clear myself and to encourage the detectives to find the real thief. Well, I flunked. I hired an independant tester and he told me to never take a polygraph again. During this entire crisis, I was hysterical, not a good test subject. I lost my job, my career and my future in the justice system because of this horrible experience. I've never gotten over it because they never arrrested the person who did this to me in the first place. I was never trusted again and I was so tramatized, I never took a job that involved handling money for fear of being framed again.
It's been 16 years now. I plan on taking another polygraph test just to see if it will work now that time has calmed me down.
This experience changed the course of my life in so many ways, I cannot begin to explain it all here. Besides it's still too painful.
I feel compassion for all people who have been falsely accused.
Thank you for this chat. It helps to know I'm not alone.
Jennifer
QuoteI plan on taking another polygraph test just to see if it will work now that time has calmed me down.
The polygraphers who come to this board swear up and down that a person failing the test while telling the truth is a very infrequent thing. Of course, they are full of crap, and have nothing but horse pucky to back that up.
The polygraph hasn't really changed. It was bogus 16 years ago, and it is bogus now.
It is not a test, but an interrogation disguised as a test. The machine is just a prop they use to intimidate people. The more you believe in the test, the more likely you are to fail. Conversely, if you are totally convinced the test is a sham, you will be less like to fall for their crap. It is similar to going to a used car lot armed with a ton of knowledge, versus going there knowing nothing about cars, or pressure sales tactics.
For what purpose are you taking another polygraph?
TC
Quote from: polyscam on May 16, 2006, 06:56 PMHi there..!!!
After reading the whole article:
http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
I can only say that I'm very impress with George qualifications..!!! He's a real asset for the INTEL community.
If the FBI founds any deceptions/lies in anyones exam, why not conduct a deeper BI...??? In the case of the drug questions, if they found "deception" Why they do not conduct a Urine/Blood analisys...???
I was also checking the web site of this Jacko Trimarco http://www.jacktrimarco.com/ what a poser...!!!!
He must be ashame of being such a liar and now profiting of his lie-machine...!!!
I think the FBI is a great agency but jokers like this Trimarco guy and all the other Polygraphers give the agency a bad reputation. Pitty..... :(
(https://antipolygraph.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacktrimarco.com%2Fimages%2Fpolygraph_r1_c1.jpg&hash=8732c2027bfb702c5310b5714d84e53d7f4f7c0b)
Personally, I never trust anyone with divergent left eye syndrome.
My heart really goes out to you, your's is an epic tragedy, my friend. I trust you know you are hardly the first patriot to be wrongfully chewed-up and spat-out by the system. I hope your life has become positive, and you are surrounded by love and happiness. ::)
Hello All,
Just to throw in my two cents, I posted my own polygraph experience on another thread ONLY because I did not understand the result. I had no intention of being deceptive, nor was I deceptive, yet was told I failed. I have no idea why. I came here looking for answers after the fact, primarily because as a former LEO it bothers me when my integrity gets questioned, made worse by the fact I am accused of being a liar by someone who is either themselves lying, or is an idiot with a bunch of squiggles on a chart interpreted as lying, either way preventing me from currently being employed at an agency when otherwise I am well qualified to work there.
In my case, I've been through a police BI before including a polygraph. I passed. I was not concerned or worried about taking a polygraph. I figured they are pretty accurate, even if not scientifically worthy to use in court.
The food for thought here is:
1) Why would I have taken a polygraph if I thought I would fail?
2) Having been through the backgrounds process before, why would I have intentionally concealed or lied about something KNOWING I would get polygraphed on it?
3) If I had lied and gotten caught, why wouldn't I have just slipped back into the ether and gone "oh well"?
Since attacks against my integrity and credibility bother me, I came here seeking answers. I've actually received some good information from people on these forums, including some from a guy claiming to be a polygraph examiner, informing me that the way they conducted my test was the wrong way to do it. He even advised me on how to file complaints.
I'm not saying every polygraph chart is wrong, or every polygraph examiner is bad, but something seriously went wrong with mine. A test conducted improperly, had very real negative implications on my life. That is why I'm here learning and talking about it.
It is very sad yet oddly comforting to know I am not the only one this has happened to. I can also assure all of you, that since I started asking around, there is at least ten more people like me floating around just in my circle of acquaintances. If this polygraph test really works then freaking fix it so it doesn't keep destroying people, or let it go, because if it doesn't really work then you guys need to get real jobs and stop screwing with mine.
Quoteit bothers me when my integrity gets questioned, made worse by the fact I am accused of being a liar by someone who is either themselves lying, or is an idiot with a bunch of squiggles on a chart interpreted as lying,
If you become employed in LE, I sincerely hope that you will hang on to this feeling of frustration and powerlessness so that you can have some empathy when your department subjects ordinary citizens to this same disparaging treatment.
Stephano
Oh of course. Remember I was formerly employed by LEO. I had a chance to attend a social function with a good number of former coworkers who were interesting in my current goings on. I had some interesting conversations. No one really thinks its fair, and most had similar stories from their applicant days regarding polygraphs and the psychological screenings. Most people applied several places before landing somewhere.
The general opinion is that its extremely fallible but very useful in investigations where they need psychological pressure. They think its bogus, but like the value of it when they have a fish in the boat so to speak.
One good friend uses it in criminal investigations once in a while, and from the conversation we had, probably read this site. He said something to the effect of;
Whenever I send someone to take it, I already know they are guilty, so its not exactly news to me when they fail. Even if they pass, it tells me they are a sociopath without a conscience and I'll need to change up my interview technique. Otherwise, its just baloney, biased against the innocent, and probably just a way for HR to strike applicants since agency staffing issues don't seem to mesh well with municipal budgets. We want 60 guys, we can only pay for 30 guys. Half the applicants get struck because we need a way to strike them that will not overtly indicate bias and get us sued.
He used a hypothetical argument of, if he sent one guy to one with a good idea he will fail, he can also predict the results accurately 98% of the time. If he sends 100 random people to weed out potential sex offenders or something, he is going to waste a lot of time.
He then spent 20 minutes instructing me on countermeasures he was aware of, all the way from sphincter puckering to anti anxiety medication.
To me it sounded like he knew it was a sham as far as pre employment screening. Note all the LEO's in the news getting busted left and right for everything from drug offenses to fraud. How did they slip through?
On a side not, a lawyer friend discussed another angle with me. He said I could consider legal options against the second examiner, because his pre exam questions regarding the other exam and examiner constituted breach. He said I was at that moment trapped in a no win situation of either being uncooperative with his questioning, or providing him with the actual identity of another examiner he could potentially discredit, lessening his chances of scoring it fairly. What do you think?
I ve been told that I, too, would make a great asset to the INTEL Community. I'm sure that I would have, if I had made it past the popularity contest known as the "background check" at the fucking CIA.
Checking for criminal history is one thing, talking to every asshole who claims to know me is quite another.
I find it amusing to read ::)about all the "moles" who are able to make it through the CIA's supposedly "impenetrable" wall of security.
If any CIA polygraphers or other agency Office of Security scum are reading this :P, I say ENJOY! You deserve all the Ames', Richardson's, and Howards that come your way!
I note that today is the 20th anniversary of my FBI pre-employment examination (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml), which, among other things, ultimately led to the creation of AntiPolygraph.org and my being here in Oklahoma City this week to observe Doug Williams' trial.
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 15, 2015, 07:20 AMI note that today is the 20th anniversary of my FBI pre-employment examination, which, among other things, ultimately led to the creation of AntiPolygraph.org and my being here in Oklahoma City this week to observe Doug Williams' trial.
Keep going George and don't quit until you've won. You will have a place in the history books next to William Wilberforce, the man who ended the English slave trade. Some may ask if I'm equating the evils of the polygraph with the evils of slavery. My answer is ..... Yes !
I note that today marks the 30th anniversary of my fateful session (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml) with the late (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5590.msg43406#msg43406) FBI polygraph operator Jack Trimarco.
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 15, 2025, 09:32 AMI note that today marks the 30th anniversary of my fateful session (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml) with the late (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5590.msg43406#msg43406) FBI polygraph operator Jack Trimarco.
I wrote this response today after reading the article for the first time, George. My apologies for saying "he" instead of "you".
It's all about the linguistics--and how the FBI really perceived them. I think some sercretive Confederate made a illegal claim of custody over him, after an embarrassing incident was smoothed over by a third-party re-classifying him as a Confederate by using known technology to knock out cold and pilot him while speaking known Confederate linguistics. Confederates are known to speak a phonetically-rooted uniquely contorted variation in English that some call no English at all. Today's Diplomatic Language standards seek to fit in with the "New Order Linguistics Fraud". The trick is: American English-speakers really don't speak NOLF. When American English-speakers are assumed to speak NOLF, everything goes awry for the American. As such, very powerful people reclassify potential witnesses/threats to their criminal enterprises in this manner. It's quite effective, as the persons secretively framed look like accomplices/apprentices of the secretive criminals.
handful of basic nolf core words:
"No" means "know" (or New Order).
"Ly" (adverb ending) means "lee" (lie), indicating there's one or more elements of dishonesty being literally described.
"Nothing" means "New Order thing"
"Or" means "operating remote".
"Did" means "killed".
As a historical matter, since the inception, NOLF has always been machine-translated. Confederates are no Americans at all.
Oftentimes, the FBI/etc will try to use NOLF speakers as "windtalkers", placing those persons in certain positions to get a read on Confederate subjects while monitoring remotely with frequency listening devices trained on mirroring the vibrating eardrum of the "windtalker" (for example). Other times, the FBI/etc simply will torture persons who are labelled as such but really don't know/speak NOLF. The FBI's incentive, from time to time, is to cover up how many wrongly mislabelled persons the FBI have criminally exploited.
Today's NOLF-framing hotbed is IARPA. IARPA are sex trafficking over half of the planet to keep their modus operandi secretive. IARPA are technically a hostile foreign nation occupation within the US government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Advanced_Research_Projects_Activity
IARPA like to ignore when persons are knocked out cold and piloted. From their Wikipedia:
Other projects involve the analysis of images or videos that lack metadata by directly analyzing the media's content itself. Examples given by IARPA include determining the location of an image by analyzing features such as the placement of trees or a mountain skyline, or determining whether a video is of a baseball game or a traffic jam.[11] Another program focuses on developing speech recognition tools that can transcribe arbitrary languages.[15]
Time for a refill of tin foil for your hat.
Quote from: quickfix on May 16, 2025, 10:14 AMTime for a refill of tin foil for your hat.
On Diplomacy and the Weight of Words
In halls where whispers weave their subtle threads,
And judgments hang like shadows on the wall,
We find the art not merely to defend,
But gently guide the stumble, catch the fall.
When voices rise with suspicion's glare,
And questions clutch the fragile, trembling mind,
Remember: beneath the words laid bare,
Lies human fear, unspoken, undefined.
Speak softly—let your tone be calm, composed—
A mirror to their trembling, uncertain heart.
Remind them, kindness is the sturdy dose
That can dissolve the shame, the doubt, the part.
Empathy, a bridge not built in haste,
Can turn embarrassment to understanding.
A patient word, a gesture, not misplaced,
May turn the tide of suspicion's branding.
So, in the face of accusations cold,
Choose silence, or the gentle truth's embrace,
For dignity is precious—more than gold—
And grace can elevate the fallen face.
Let us, with tact, dispel the clouds of fear,
And forge a space where trust can reappear.
To ease their embarrassment, softly steer—
With words that heal, and hearts sincere.
I would like to thank W. H. Auden.