Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
Previously, AntiPolygraph.org has reported that an Al-Qaeda document titled Mawsu'at al-jihad (Encyclopedia of Jihad) includes a section on lie detectors that made it clear that Al-Qaeda understood that polygraphy is junk science. (See, Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=843.msg5530#msg5530).)
But a more recent article on the Al-Qaeda website www.tawhed.ws titled "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) goes further in explaining polygraph procedure, including an explanation of "control" questions as well as physical, mental, and behavioral countermeasures. It is unmistakaby clear that the primary (albeit unattributed) source for this article, which was originally published in the Dhu al-Qa'dah 1425 (December 2004) issue of al-Fath magazine, was The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The article (in Arabic) is available here:
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=3165
U.S. policymakers who are still foolishly relying on the polygraph to assess the credibility of Al-Qaeda prisoners, suspects, and informants need to wake up and realize that the polygraph is utterly unreliable as a lie detector. Al-Qaeda knows it, and they know how to countermeasure it.
Al-Fath magazine is an Arabic language publication of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. The article, "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) is found at pp. 19-22 of the magazine's first issue, dated Dhu al-Qa'dah 1425 (December 2004), which is available as a zipped PDF file here:
http://www.geocities.com/alfat7_mag_no1/ft-1.zip
The index page on the website www.tawhed.ws where the HTML version of the article, "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) is listed, which provides links to this and other articles on intelligence and security matters, indicates that the article on the lie detector has been viewed more than 4,200 times:
http://www.tawhed.ws/c?i=44
The same page also indicates that the article has been downloaded (it's available as a zipped Microsoft Word document here (http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=3165&a=d)) some 740 times.
George,
It may not be a very good idea to open an Al-Qaeda website. Before you know it, you get the Feds all over you and find yourself in Guantanamo Bay, especially after recent news at the NSA. What do you think? I'd like to read it but you never know
Opp
opp,
Unless you read Arabic, the above-reference pages probably won't be of much interest. Assuming you do, here are links you can use to load the pages through the Coral (http://www.coralcdn.org) proxy network (created by adding ".nyud.net:8090" to the domain name in the URL):
HTML: http://www.tawhed.ws.nyud.net:8090/r?i=3165
Zipped MS Word document: http://www.tawhed.ws.nyud.net:8090/r?i=3165&a=d
Article index page: http://www.tawhed.ws.nyud.net:8090/c?i=44
Issue of al-Fath magazine with article: http://www.geocities.com.nyud.net:8090/alfat7_mag_no1/ft-1.zip
A rough English translation of the article has been prepared from the Arabic and will be posted on AntiPolygraph.org shortly. It appears that apart from The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, the author of this article also relied on Kevin Bonsor's article, "How Lie Detectors Work (http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector.htm) on HowStuffWorks.com.
An English translation of "The Myth of the Lie Detector" is now available here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/myth-of-the-lie-detector.shtml
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 09, 2006, 02:46 PMAl-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
.[/b]
George, you must be so proud. Have they asked you to come by and lecture on the topic?
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Jan 15, 2006, 02:28 PMGeorge, you must be so proud. Have they asked you to come by and lecture on the topic?
Proud? No! I'm angered and dismayed by the stupidity and incompetence of U.S. Government officials who continue to rely on polygraphy despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it is unreliable.
Now we have incontrovertible proof that our jihadist adversaries fully understand that polygraphy is a sham and have an idea of how to countermeasure it. This should be a wake-up call to the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 15, 2006, 02:46 PM
Proud? No! I'm angered and dismayed by the stupidity and incompetence of U.S. Government officials who continue to rely on polygraphy despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it is unreliable.
Now we have incontrovertible proof that our jihadist adversaries fully understand that polygraphy is a sham and have an idea of how to countermeasure it. This should be a wake-up call to the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
Mr. Maschke,
Okay, I get it. You so hate this polygraph stuff that hurt you so bad, that you write a book containing your beliefs on how to "beat" it. The book is (thanks to the internet) picked up by our sworn enemies, translated, and distributed to their thousands of minions around the world to include many that have found thier way into our beloved country.
You are not only unbothered by this, you are actually quite proud of what you have done.
So, in other words (assuming for arguments sake the methods taught in your book were actually effective), you have in fact handed a loaded weapon to a terrorist, cocked back the hammer, showed the terrorist where to point it, and encouraged him to pull the trigger.
Actually, I shouldn't be surprised. You have already assisted our registered sex offender community in this fashion.
As I said before, you must be proud..
Nonombre
nonombre
If you would put forth the effort to do some research, you would find that the Jihadist had all the poop on beating the polygraph long before this website hit the internet. You also know that an ex cop in Oklahoma was selling the info long before this website hit the internet. Spies the world over had the knowledge to beat the polygoof, excuse me, the polygraph long before this website hit the internet. However, I suspect that you know this and you know, also, that nothing has had the impact on the polygraph community than has antipolygraph.org. Do you people sense that the end of the poly is near and that's why y'all through wild accusations at George and this website?
I admire anyone who won't go down without a fight, but y'all are goin down. One should perfect the jab before trying to through the haymaker.
Nonombre,
You may think me blameworthy for making information about polygraph procedure and countermeasures publicly available and free, but as Twoblock points out, any resourceful adversary could have done the same research that Gino Scalabrini and I did in writing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Again, I take no pride in the fact that jihadists have exploited the information provided here. The reason that I have called attention to this fact, and posted an English translation of the relevant article, is that I think it is important that U.S. policymakers be aware of it.
I also think it is important that polygraph examiners such as yourself be aware of it. Regrettably, you seem unwilling to confront the serious implications of this news, preferring to shoot the messenger instead.
Nonombre:
If polygraphers are able to detect these countermeasures, why are you concerned about Mr. Maschke posting what he found on the Al Queda web site?
Indeed, if you can detect countermeasures why are you posting on this web site and why are you concerned about countermeasures? ???
George and Associates have helped supply numerous persons with the ability to produce resultes on a polygraph that violate basic values of most Americans, and no shame from either. Where is the surprise in that? So intenet on destroying the use of insturmentation to aid security of our country is of no concern, just winning a battle against use of polygraphics and "I win You Loose" is the goal. Congradulations on your accomplishment George and Associates.
Quote from: whylie on Jan 17, 2006, 02:20 PMGeorge and Associates have helped supply numerous persons with the ability to produce resultes on a polygraph that violate basic values of most Americans, and no shame from either. Where is the surprise in that? So intenet on destroying the use of insturmentation to aid security of our country is of no concern, just winning a battle against use of polygraphics and "I win You Loose" is the goal. Congradulations on your accomplishment George and Associates.
Which basic values are on your mind? The ones that provide every American is entitled to be bamboozled, lied to and blindly led to believe mistruths and injustices? Sorry, those do not match my values. The instrumentation you speak of does little to provide security to our nation. In reality it is a detriment to rely upon polygraph evidence as a means of determining truth. Perhaps a crystal ball would be helpful for national security. At least it would be a bit easier to hurl toward the enemy than a computer program and blood pressure cuff. As to the argument you elude to: It's currently the best we have at our disposal. Well, if air travel was plagued with as many accidents as polygraph is with incorrect results would you feel the same? Another jet went down, but it's the best we got. Lie detection must be scientifically proven before it can receive due reliance. So far that is not the case. Maybe we should issue every soldier an M-1 Garand rather than modern weaponry. Those rifles worked well in WWII. Also, you may want to check your local library, university library or law library and see what information you can find about polygraphy. The information that polygraph testing is not reliable is not found only here.
Just think, according to what you have stated, you believe that for national security purposes, our nation should continue using testing which is easily foiled. That is according to your statement, not mine.
"As to the argument you elude to: It's currently the best we have at our disposal."
No where did I state that, you are atypical of the type persons that argue the case against polygaphics. Misquote, take out of context.
Yes I believe that polygraph is vulnerable to mistakes, and yes it is not true science, but to tell our enemies how to defeat it is next to aiding them in their plight. And I choose not to answer any questions or respond further, I have stated my opinion. If you feel yours is of higher quality, hang tight and be brave in your statements. Don't misquote me.
Quote from: whylie on Jan 17, 2006, 08:44 PM"As to the argument you elude to: It's currently the best we have at our disposal."
No where did I state that, you are atypical of the type persons that argue the case against polygaphics. Misquote, take out of context.
Yes I believe that polygraph is vulnerable to mistakes, and yes it is not true science, but to tell our enemies how to defeat it is next to aiding them in their plight. And I choose not to answer any questions or respond further, I have stated my opinion. If you feel yours is of higher quality, hang tight and be brave in your statements. Don't misquote me.
I did not quote you. I stated "elude." The exact statement from you as quoted:
QuoteSo intenet on destroying the use of insturmentation to aid security of our country is of no concern,
Your quote would seem to lend credence to my statement.
This site does not provide information for belt-bomb construction, soft-targets, vulnerabilities within our national security (with the exception that polygraphy does not work as touted), or any information which would be truly detrimental to our nation if utilized by terrorist scum.
FYI, I do not feel that my opinion carries greater weight or value than your opinion. I simply took the opportunity to call you on the broad and sweeping statements you made.
I do not understand the reasoning behind your desired continued use of polygraph testing when you state that polygraph is vulnerable to mistakes and is not true science. If it doesn't work than it shouldn't be depended upon to the extent that it currently enjoys.
A quick thought about the argument that Antipolygraph.org has done such an unpardonable sin to our nation by providing information about polygraph testing's unreliability. Well, perhaps every website that provides information about outdoor survival should be seen in the same light. After all, don't some of the biggest names in terrorism sometimes live like survivalists? Kind of skewered thinking isn't it?
If you would like feel free to respond. My aim is not in one-upping you, but providing my point of view as you have provided your point of view.
Thanks for your clarification. I will not debate polygraphics nor will I express any opinion regarding its use in national security. I have no specific knowledge regarding the manner in which it may be used for national security. My point regards the "possibility" that this site may have provided information to persons regarding how to lie and not get caught as relates to national security. If there is a possibility this occurred because of this site's infomation provided to them, I disagree with that mission whether intentional or accidental.
Quote from: whylie on Jan 18, 2006, 02:26 PMThanks for your clarification. I will not debate polygraphics nor will I express any opinion regarding its use in national security. I have no specific knowledge regarding the manner in which it may be used for national security. My point regards the "possibility" that this site may have provided information to persons regarding how to lie and not get caught as relates to national security. If there is a possibility this occurred because of this site's infomation provided to them, I disagree with that mission whether intentional or accidental.
What you seem to be either ignorant of or completely disregarding is that the polygraph as a method of detecting deception has no scientific basis whatsoever.
When using such a flawed and inaccurate process to screen potential terrorists and/or questions terrorists already in custody, there is no reason to believe it becomes any more accurate simply because the stakes are higher.
In any polygraph examination where a conclusion is reached the end result will either be "No Deception Indicated" or "Deception Indicated." Neither conclusion offers any real information on the test subject.
"No Deception Indicated" means that the subject was telling the truth, or successfully used countermeasures, or was in fact being deceptive but registered as a "false negative", which does happen since even the most ardent supporter of the polygraph will not claim they are 100% accurate.
"Deception Indicated" means that the subject was being deceptive, or was showing a stress reaction, or did a poor job of attempting countermeasures, or was in fact being truthful but registered as a "false positive."
At the end of the test you truly have no more information that you would have had if you'd skipped the test and guessed instead.
The fact that our government chooses to utilize such a vague and inaccurate machine in the war against terror does not suddenly make the polygraph any better or more accurate. The information on how a polygraph works is freely available at many places other than this web site, and anyone who has access to that information would, in my opinion, make an exceptionally poor subject.
Since there is absolutely no way to tell how has seen that information and who has not, and since the polygraph requires the test subject to be ignorant of its procedures in order to have the slightest chance of eliciting a fear-induced confession (which is really the only possible positive outcome of a polygraph exam) I don't see how any polygraph exams can have any credibility.
Last sentence, "I don't see" and stop there. Yes you are blinded by what you believe you know, and have no evidence regarding how this affects national security. Again, I don't care to debate, just stated an opinion
Whylie
Being a police officer and a person who knows the workings of the polygoof and our national security (police are a part of the Patriot Act. Or didn't you know that),the sargent has made an eloquent and intelligent post. You accuse him of "having no evidence of how this effects national security". I take it that you do or you are making a blind opinion. If you do have evidence then you have been misleading us by saying that you don't know enough to debate the poly.
I personally think you are a polygrapher taking a different approach trying to discredit this website and it's members. That's just a blind opinion of coarse. The fact that you don't want to debate sounds like another polygrapher that I labeled a "hit and run" poster quite some time ago. Keep making snide and rude remarks, as in your above post, and your stock will quickly drop. Just another blind opinion.
I won't post any longer and will withdraw. You are 100% correct, give all information to our advisaries and let the cards fall.
Al-Qaeda has read, (more or less) understood, and summarized in Arabic the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Gee George, I almost sounds like you were grading your student's homework assignment !!!
Previously, AntiPolygraph.org has reported that an Al-Qaeda document titled Mawsu'at al-jihad (Encyclopedia of Jihad) includes a section on lie detectors that made it clear that Al-Qaeda understood that polygraphy is junk science. (See, Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection.)
--- And you even offer them your terminology too !!! It sounds like you take a great deal of pride in this as if you have compromised the polygraph------------ NOT !!!!
But a more recent article on the Al-Qaeda website www.tawhed.ws titled "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) goes further in explaining polygraph procedure, including an explanation of "control" questions as well as physical, mental, and behavioral countermeasures. It is unmistakaby clear that the primary (albeit unattributed) source for this article, which was originally published in the Dhu al-Qa'dah 1425 (December 2004) issue of al-Fath magazine, was The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The article (in Arabic) is available here:
---- And who is one of the only people out there who could translate it for them ? And who is known to have Iranian and other radical middle eastern contacts ?
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=3165
U.S. policymakers who are still foolishly relying on the polygraph to assess the credibility of Al-Qaeda prisoners, suspects, and informants need to wake up and realize that the polygraph is utterly unreliable as a lie detector. Al-Qaeda knows it, and they know how to countermeasure it.
-------AND Why do they know this ??? YOU George !!!! And you go so far as to call out government foolish as well !!! You had the Means, Motive, and Opportunity which are the basics of any crime. That they would Attempt countermeasures is no less than partially laid at YOUR feet, if not completely.
Re: Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detec
Reply #1 - Jan 10th, 2006, 7:47am Al-Fath magazine is an Arabic language publication of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. The article, "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) is found at pp. 19-22 of the magazine's first issue, dated Dhu al-Qa'dah 1425 (December 2004), which is available as a zipped PDF file here: http://www.geocities.com/alfat7_mag_no1/ft-1.zip
----Sounds like you knew just where to look as if waiting for it's publicaton. What grade would you give your efforts ??? I'll give you a "C" for Collaborator !!! How about a "B" for Betrayal, Maybe even an "A" for Anti-American !! I think no less than a "D" though for Deralication of Duty !!!, Perhaps in clarity an "F" for F*%(ing Traitor.
Your activities to my mind are pre-assasination Lee Harvey
Oswald-esque.
Re: Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector And who provided that opportunity ?
Reply #2 - Jan 10th, 2006, 9:37am The index page on the website www.tawhed.ws where the HTML version of the article, "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) is listed, which provides links to this and other articles on intelligence and security matters, indicates that the article on the lie detector has been viewed more than 4,200 times:
http://www.tawhed.ws/c?i=44
The same page also indicates that the article has been downloaded (it's available as a zipped Microsoft Word document here) some 740 times.
So that's YOUR work viewed by Arabic / or Farsi speakers no less than 4,200 times, and downloaded no less than 740 times ? How many of those would be an acceptable number to you should any of them be terrorists ?
Question: If the U.S. Government could identify even one person known to be a foreign intelligence officer, terrorist, or enemy alian that you assisted in this work either verbal or written (ie; a defector who resided in Holland, or elsewhere you were known to be in Europe) then what would you regard as the proper punishment ?
How far are you willing to go with all of this George ??? Do you personally have a HIGHER cause or purpose than to harm U.S. Intelligence in this one of it's protected tools ?
Attempts Count Under The Law !!!!! Don't They ?????
TheNoLieGuy4U,
Please do not use highlight tags to quote text from other posts. The conventional way to quote text is with quote tags, like this:
[quote]Quoted text goes here.[/quote]which produces:
QuoteQuoted text goes here.
Moving on, while you may desperately wish that it were a crime to publicly tell the truth about polygraphy, it isn't. Regarding the ethical considerations involved, see my "Response to Paul Menges Concerning the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public." (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml)
It's worth noting that the original Arabic language article that is the topic of this message thread, أسطورة جهاز كشف الكذب (http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=3165&PHPSESSID=5bafa045d18d7c9cd77d7b7b4edc155f) (The Myth of the Lie Detector), is still on-line and now has (http://www.tawhed.ws/c?i=44) 12,972 views and 2,481 downloads.
Twoblock, et al,
why is it that anyone who disagrees with the mantra of this board or who dare opposes your "enlightened" opinion MUST be a polygraph examiner in disguise? "There they are again, trying to disrupt our indoctrination of the ignorant and unaware..."
While I am aware of the intent of this board, I am not aware of the motives George has towards Child Molesters and Terrorists. I am not in a position to accuse him of wanting to disrupt national security or assist perverts beat the system. Whether he hopes these people disprove the polygraph process as an accurate method of "catching" them, I do not know.
I do know that this type of board assists in the promotion of confidence with some examinees when entering the suite. It's actually funny. I have coined a phrase called "the look." This is the look I get when people I know have been searching the internet come in with some hightened level of confidence that they will beat me (They all have the same look, too!).
By the time I get to testing, it's usually gone. Why, because I explain things well enough they understand the procedure and know that any attempt to influence their charts will result in them being thrown out for non-cooperation (not good if you're an applicant or convicted sex offender). But if not, the first time I catch them "playing around" in the test, they (usually) stop their behaviors and we get on with the process.
Sackett
Hello GM / Moderator,
May I ask you politely and in plain English; HAVE YOU PERSONALLY EVER TRANSLATED OR ASSISTED ANY PERSON IN THE TRANSLATION OF ANTI-POLYGRAPH MATERIALS OR LITERATURE INTO ARABIC, FARSI, OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE ? You have spoken about articles being translated in the third person, but were YOU ever involved in ANY of them. OR are you saying that ALL of them were translated without YOU ?
TheNoLieGuy4U,
I have not played any role in the translation of anything related to polygraphy to Arabic or Persian (Farsi). At some future point, polygraph information may be made available on AntiPolygraph.org in these and/or other languages. But it's not a priority. At present, the only language in addition to English in which we have any documentation is Spanish. (See the Spanish language poster on our Campus Poster Initiative (https://antipolygraph.org/posters.shtml) page.)
And note that the article in al-Fath magazine is not a translation of any document on AntiPolygraph.org. It's a paraphrasing. And I had no role in the production of that, either.
You've peppered various message threads with scattered accusations that I have betrayed various oaths, and may well have broken certain laws. You've even suggested that I have committed the capital offense of treason. Why not start a new thread devoted to a full expression of your views on this topic? Perhaps you could title it, "Why George Maschke Should Be Put Up Against a Brick Wall and Shot!"
;)
George,
Thank You for your quick response in regard to written materials. PART II; Have you participated in verbal conversations in Arabic or Farsi about the subject of polygraph countermeasures with middle eastern individuals either there in The Hauge, or elsewhere ?
In regard to your claim of my so called "Peppering" of my writings here, they really aren't that spicy. I prefer just plain old steak and potatoes truth, and in reality have asked you to consider whether or not you could see how your former breatheran in the Intel community could and do see that you went too far, and also that your timing was the worst possible in the world. Further, that if you had considered all of that you would see that your greatest victory of the polygraph you despise would have been that you possibly "Could Have" been hired anyway based on the needs of the nation you left behind.
If I woke up tommorow and found a job in the paper I wanted to apply for, and it required I have a very special background clearance utilizing brain fingerprinting, and I was told I was not chosen, would my life stop mid stream ? NO !!! I would be no worse off than the day prior, just as you were able to finish your military reserve career. I would not then spend an inordinate amount of my time at the expense of having a wife, family, and a normal life because of brain fingerprinting equipment !!!!
I am not your Judge or Jury about your oath and executed documents regarding both the spirit and binding measures those legal and moral and professional promises imply. As previously stated, I bow to the system for that, and wanted to give you a wake up call that you have come to the edge, or some may see you as having gone past. I have not advocated violence against you, and if you check that reference came from one of your own Anti-Poly cheerleaders. I have merely pointed out to you that there are limits, and at some point a prosecutor looking at the totality of who you are, what / who you were, adn what you now represent; May determine that you 1. Have ongoing foreign national contacts with the very nation that is the number one backer of terrorism against the United States, and some of it's soldiers have in fact killed our men in Iraq. 2. That these relationships, beyond your U.N. work, have raised suspicion as to HOW the attempted compromising of a U.S. Intelligence tool is being carried out, as nobody seems to have the passion for it more than you. 3. That in our domestic front, you seek to compromise efforts to monitor and control the very worst of sex offenders who target our children, and who turn to YOU for assistance as not to be in their court ordered compliance.
The Means, Method(s), and Opportunity are the elements of proving any crime. A jury via a U.S. Court room, should a prosecutor take the case, may be the proper venue to decide this. It's not up to me, but rather those in power who choose to prioritize you or not. Just don't pretend you have not considered all of this before. As previously stated, I would settle for an administrative law judge to determine if you have earned a forfeiture of your military retirement. I place my trust that the right thing will be done in the end. Don't You ?
In closing let me say that I am greatful that you and I may have this site for point counter point, and that you have grown as a moderator in simply NOT banning me for introducing a new concept of thought to all of this, or shal we say a larger macro view of it.
I really don't feel a new thread is needed, as your Anti folks, and the Pro folks, and those of us with parallel interests seem to be doing fine as things go day by day.
Quote from: whylie on Mar 13, 2008, 02:29 AMGeorge,
Thank You for your quick response in regard to written materials. PART II; Have you participated in verbal conversations in Arabic or Farsi about the subject of polygraph countermeasures with middle eastern individuals either there in The Hauge, or elsewhere ?
I don't see how that is any business of yours.
QuoteIn regard to your claim of my so called "Peppering" of my writings here, they really aren't that spicy. I prefer just plain old steak and potatoes truth, and in reality have asked you to consider whether or not you could see how your former breatheran in the Intel community could and do see that you went too far, and also that your timing was the worst possible in the world. Further, that if you had considered all of that you would see that your greatest victory of the polygraph you despise would have been that you possibly "Could Have" been hired anyway based on the needs of the nation you left behind.
I've hardly "left my nation behind." I'm a U.S. citizen. I return to the U.S. regularly, and will be returning permanently at the end of my overseas employment.
And you are mistaken in thinking that I co-founded AntiPolygraph.org out of embitterment over my personal plight. That's not the case. For four years after my FBI/LAPD polygraph experience, I kept silent and simply moved on. It was only much later, after learning that what happened to me was happening to many others that I felt compelled to speak publicly on polygraph policy. I don't desire a job with any intelligence agency, and would probably not accept one, if offered.
QuoteIf I woke up tommorow and found a job in the paper I wanted to apply for, and it required I have a very special background clearance utilizing brain fingerprinting, and I was told I was not chosen, would my life stop mid stream ? NO !!! I would be no worse off than the day prior, just as you were able to finish your military reserve career. I would not then spend an inordinate amount of my time at the expense of having a wife, family, and a normal life because of brain fingerprinting equipment !!!!
But what if you were denied the job because of a pseudoscientific fraud like polygraph screening? And wrongly (and permanently) branded as a liar by your government to boot? To judge the honesty and integrity of people based on voodoo science that depends on the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the examinee is unacceptable in a civil society. Perhaps you cannot fathom this because you personally profit from this pseudoscientific fraud.
QuoteI am not your Judge or Jury about your oath and executed documents regarding both the spirit and binding measures those legal and moral and professional promises imply. As previously stated, I bow to the system for that, and wanted to give you a wake up call that you have come to the edge, or some may see you as having gone past. I have not advocated violence against you, and if you check that reference came from one of your own Anti-Poly cheerleaders.
Well, you've suggested that you think I have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. In another thread you wrote (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3866.msg28658#msg28658):
QuoteYour betrayal of the U.S. Intel community is more like that of the Rosenbergs who did so as zealots for change, and they were quite properly executed for treason. By the way Treason has no statute of limitations.
You continue:
QuoteI have merely pointed out to you that there are limits, and at some point a prosecutor looking at the totality of who you are, what / who you were, adn what you now represent; May determine that you 1. Have ongoing foreign national contacts with the very nation that is the number one backer of terrorism against the United States, and some of it's soldiers have in fact killed our men in Iraq. 2. That these relationships, beyond your U.N. work, have raised suspicion as to HOW the attempted compromising of a U.S. Intelligence tool is being carried out, as nobody seems to have the passion for it more than you. 3. That in our domestic front, you seek to compromise efforts to monitor and control the very worst of sex offenders who target our children, and who turn to YOU for assistance as not to be in their court ordered compliance.
The Means, Method(s), and Opportunity are the elements of proving any crime. A jury via a U.S. Court room, should a prosecutor take the case, may be the proper venue to decide this. It's not up to me, but rather those in power who choose to prioritize you or not. Just don't pretend you have not considered all of this before. As previously stated, I would settle for an administrative law judge to determine if you have earned a forfeiture of your military retirement. I place my trust that the right thing will be done in the end. Don't You ?
I suppose you're entitled to dream. I think you and too many polygraph operators confuse dissent for disloyalty, your personal interest for the public interest, and your job security for national security.
QuoteIn closing let me say that I am greatful that you and I may have this site for point counter point, and that you have grown as a moderator in simply NOT banning me for introducing a new concept of thought to all of this, or shal we say a larger macro view of it.
AntiPolygraph.org has welcomed opposing viewpoints from the beginning. The same cannot be said of pro-polygraph websites such as PolygraphPlace.com.
QuoteI really don't feel a new thread is needed, as your Anti folks, and the Pro folks, and those of us with parallel interests seem to be doing fine as things go day by day.
Suit yourself. I think it would be entertaining to read the indictment you would prepare were you appointed Chief Inquisitor.
;-)
QuoteYou've peppered various message threads with scattered accusations that I have betrayed various oaths, and may well have broken certain laws. You've even suggested that I have committed the capital offense of treason.
And he does so under an anonymous name, like some cowardly cur.
NoLieGuy:
I am curious. Are you using government resources, (computer equipment) and are you on the clock when you are posting your messages to this board?
n.p.c.
I don't know about the others, but I am.
Reason? It is continuing education for any examiner. I can't catch you guys if I don't know what you're talking about and/or what to look for in the test.... 8-)
Sackett
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:20 AMn.p.c.
I don't know about the others, but I am.
Reason? It is continuing education for any examiner. I can't catch you guys if I don't know what you're talking about and/or what to look for in the test....
Sackett
SO MUCH FOR CLAIM THAT CM'S DON'T WORK :o
Quote from: whylie on Mar 13, 2008, 04:11 AMQuoteYou've peppered various message threads with scattered accusations that I have betrayed various oaths, and may well have broken certain laws. You've even suggested that I have committed the capital offense of treason.
And he does so under an anonymous name, like some cowardly cur.
Mr/Ms Cullen,
most posters here, both anti and pro polygraph do so under monikers rather than their own name. George has made a hobby of "outing" examiners so it really doesn't do us any good to "hide" behind one. Hence, I do not.
Conversely, most anti posters hide behind a false name for the convenience of anonymity. George seems to respect their anonymity.
Bias? I think so!
Why are the anti posters hiding behind false monikers or cutesy false nicknames!? They have nothing to loose through their identification. What are they hiding from? They've already been falsely deemed liars by the agencies they applied with, right? So what's the point?
Though they certainly have the right to hide, when you insinuate cowardice, I think the anonymous anti posters are the true cowards on this board! One anonymous pro-polygraph poster does not make for a legion of cowards... legions of anonymous anti's, do.
Sackett
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:23 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:20 AMn.p.c.
I don't know about the others, but I am.
Reason? It is continuing education for any examiner. I can't catch you guys if I don't know what you're talking about and/or what to look for in the test....
Sackett
SO MUCH FOR CLAIM THAT CM'S DON'T WORK :o
"notguilty1",
I have already stated in previous postings (you're not paying attention again) that influencing physiology/biology during a test can certainly effect an examination. If your examiner is sleeping or playing cards during the test (for example) he won't catch them. BUT, if I and other examiners know what to look for (thanks George for making an easy to read guide of the opposing team's playbook) during the examination, your efforts at CM's will not only be fruitless but also seem very lame when attempted. :(
Suprisingly, I am one of this site's biggest supporters; amongst examiners...! ;)
Sackett
QuoteConversely, most anti posters hide behind a false name for the convenience of anonymity. George seems to respect their anonymity.
Bias? I think so!
Accusing somebody of treason under a false name is "cowardly".
BTW, my wife doesn't post or visit here.
Which polygrapher has GM tossed?
Biased? He just banned "LALE" (an "anti") the other day.
When did GM NOT respect a polygrapher's anonymity?
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 02:09 PMQuoteConversely, most anti posters hide behind a false name for the convenience of anonymity. George seems to respect their anonymity.
Bias? I think so!
Accusing somebody of treason under a false name is "cowardly".
BTW, my wife doesn't post or visit here.
Which polygrapher has GM tossed?
Biased? He just banned "LALE" (an "anti") the other day.
When did GM NOT respect a polygrapher's anonymity?
I don't necessarily diagree, but, isn't this supposed to be about free speech? An open debate of polygraph, etc, etc. Opinions ARE opinions.
This has nothing to do with family members... Initally I had no idea why you made that statement...Then, I realized my address. Well, if you don't use a moniker or false name like the rest, and you only use initials, I have no idea that you were male or female. The last thing I want to do is be accused of is being sexist on top of all the other names I get here. You have now made it clear, Mr Cullen.
I don't what you mean by "tossed." If you mean banning them, I think there have been a couple in the past in which he has banned (from recollection). Maybe I'm mistaken, probably not.
Regarding "outing" an examiner, there has been numerous incident in the past where George has purposefully followed up on IP addresses and reported their origins here in order to "out" the poster as an examiner. Most recently, the "outing" of several examiners who posted here under assumed names (through the cutesy identification by fairly tale/fictional characters, etc) obviously in an attempt to embarrass them, was noted. Regardless of their intent or supposed conspiracy. Is this the same free speech under the provisions of anonymity afforded to all? I Don't think so... Nothing of the same attempt has ever been done to any "anti" poster that I'm aware of.
Sackett
P.S. George banned "LALE" because he was personally insulting and "over the top." I believe he'll be back under a different name and log in. His personality/ego can't let him stay away...I say within 2 weeks we'll see a "new" poster proclaiming all the garbage he was spewing....
Sackett,
You protest too much methinks. The message board at PolygraphPlace.com (http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi) lists you as a moderator for the private forum. I fully respect and understand polygraphers' desire to have a private forum. But I note that on the
public forums, polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post at all. Some years ago, both Drew Richardson and I were banned from PolygraphPlace.com for posting polite but dissenting views and information, and our posts were all deleted.
As for polygraphers' identities being disclosed here, it has only happened rarely, and has been the consequence of egregious bad behavior on their part, including deliberately spreading disinformation. For examples, see:
- Outing the Trolls: The Polygraph Peanut Gallery (A Cast of Characters Starring Eric S. Johnson, Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd, and Louis Irving Rovner) (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3721.msg26600#msg26600)
- DEA and Anal Pad (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2145.msg15308#msg15308)
- U.S. Military Computer Systems Used to Post Disinformation on AntiPolygraph.org (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-043.shtml)
George,
I only protest inequality when methinks equality is proclaimed and I do not experience or observe it.
As a moderator on Polygraphplace.com, I have not deleted or removed any postings (except my own) in the several years I have been on the site.
Further, the purpose of the Polygraph Place web site is to provide a place where interested people can inquire of polygraph examiners, their thoughts concerning issues personal to the poster.
Polygraphplace.com IS NOT an open discussion venue/forum whereby attacks on the profession may be launched. That is what happens here!
Sackett
T.M. Cullen,
I wanted to take a moment to assure you personally, from me to you, that if you stepped into my office you would note awards on my wall for both humanitarian service one on one saving human life in the third world in places others did not want to go. I have seen famine, death, disease, and disaster driven refugees to whom I exposed myself at the risk of my own health and life, and for which flag officers placed medals on my chest. I look in the mirror everyday knowing that I have worked in humanitarian projects for over thirty years helping others start or secure the American dream, and am the first in my extended family others turn to when threatened in any way for both advice and protection. Such is not the chapters that built the life story of a coward. Further, that anominity is provided at this site is not a luxury I created, but one the moderator provides in good taste consistent with his mission that the polygraph topic, and the macro surrounding issues, be dealt with in their entirety. I enjoy as you do that priviledge, and you may be assured that I hold these opinions no matter which name you know me by. That anyone would seek to "Out" someone because of their opinion is in fact an act of a coward unless that unknown person has committed a violent crime, and a legitimate authority such as the Police needed that information. I do not act as, or seek the company of anyone who is a coward. Those who know who I am know better, so I grant you a pass in saying so from an emotional reaction.
NoPolyCop,
You asked: "NoLieGuy:
I am curious. Are you using government resources, (computer equipment) and are you on the clock when you are posting your messages to this board?"
My Response: You may assume that I own my own computer, participate on my own free time, and that my opinions, thoughts, and deliberations are my own as an individual.
May I ask you, was your experience with the polygraph one related to a pre-employment test (depending on the era you were hired in), or was it related to an I.A.. Was that / Were any; of those I.A.'s sustained ? Further, given that you claim to still carry a badge, are you participating in this forum on tax payer time, or simply from home or off time ?
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 04:36 PM NoPolyCop,
You asked: "NoLieGuy:
I am curious. Are you using government resources, (computer equipment) and are you on the clock when you are posting your messages to this board?"
My Response: You may assume that I own my own computer, participate on my own free time, and that my opinions, thoughts, and deliberations are my own as an individual.
May I ask you, was your experience with the polygraph one related to a pre-employment test (depending on the era you were hired in), or was it related to an I.A.. Was that / Were any; of those I.A.'s sustained ? Further, given that you claim to still carry a badge, are you participating in this forum on tax payer time, or simply from home or off time ?
NoLieGuy:
I asked you a direct question so I would not have to presume, because if I presumed, then I would presume you are in fact using a govt. computer, on govt. time. Afterall, no one has enough free time of their own to write the missives you write, I figured you gotta be getting paid for it.
I will answer your questions directly, even if you won't answer mine. I have taken three polygraphs, all pre-employment. I was the victim of a false positive, which set the stage for my personal dislike of the polygraph exam process. Since that first one, I took two others and was hired both times, which of couse means I passed. I have also taken a CVSA and passed.
I no longer work for an LE agency on a paid basis, but volunteer my time on occasion, when needed. Private employment pays more that public service, and I have done my time, 30 years worth.
nopolycop,
YOU WROTE: "Afterall, no one has enough free time of their own to write the missives you write, I figured you gotta be getting paid for it."
Thank You for your thirty years of service. I am not currently working for any U.S. Gov. agency, and rather suffered a stroke a while back. Therefore, as you might imagine, I still apply myself and work as best and how I can, but do have time on my hands. While I might qualify in what we know as the "Americans with Disabilities Act", I am made of the same grit as you, drink my coffee black, and have cut back on most donuts. Nobody is paying me to share my experiences and I too write from my heart. That my experiences are different than yours is what this board is all about as the moderator would have us provide a macro view of who is out there, and what their polygraph experience(s) are. Where we differ is only that you and others seek to ban all of this, while I want to raise the standard as to WHO does these tests. The computer is neutral, and it is the human element which must be worked on / improved. BOTH the Examiner and the test subjects, but not by CM's ; rather by each applying themselves to plain Truth, and not rationalization / omission / or avoidance.
QuoteAs for polygraphers' identities being disclosed here, it has only happened rarely, and has been the consequence of egregious bad behavior on their part, including deliberately spreading disinformation.
I think it is GOOD that polygraphers post here as it gives people lurking from the sidelines a chance to see what they are really like. The more unreasonable they are the better!
"You can fool ALL of the people, SOME of the time.
You can fool SOME of the people, ALL of the time.
But you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time."
Abraham Lincoln.
QuoteI will answer your questions directly, even if you won't answer mine. I have taken three polygraphs, all pre-employment. I was the victim of a false positive, which set the stage for my personal dislike of the polygraph exam process. Since that first one, I took two others and was hired both times, which of couse means I passed. I have also taken a CVSA and passed.
How do you know you were "false positive" on your first test considering the fact that you failed?
How can you be sure you were telling the truth? How could you be telling the truth without the polygrapher knowing?
Maybe you're going stark raving mad!
Or maybe you've just entered the
"POLYGRAPH ZONE"
Do do do do do do do do
(http://www.rodserling.com/images/Ron_Marko_sculpture_BUST.jpg)
Maybe you've become an unwitting pawn of Al Qaeda and the evil forces of Osama, by trying to expose the pseudo-scientific underpinnings of the polygrapher mind.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:45 PM nopolycop,
That my experiences are different than yours is what this board is all about as the moderator would have us provide a macro view of who is out there, and what their polygraph experience(s) are. Where we differ is only that you and others seek to ban all of this
NoLieGuy:
You are assuming too much when it comes to motives. I seriously doubt if any career LEO would call for the total abandonment of polygraph procedure. I certainly don't, the procedure has it's place. But, that place is not in pre-employment for civilian law enforcement, WHEN it is used as the break-point for whether a person gets a job or not. It is simply too inaccurate for that purpose. I haven't formed an opinion as whether or not it should be used as a fact finding tool for LEO screening, I am conflicted about that.
I do know my own experiences though, and what I have read here and elsewhere. American citizens deserve more than being branded as being dishonest when they are routinely called such by trade school graduates. Polygraph errors effect people long term, not just for that one particular job where the false positive occured. In any BI packet, it is always asked if they have taken a polygraph before, and what those results are. If one states they failed a previous one, they are assumed to be a liar from the beginning, and likely will fail the next one too. Gotta go, time is money.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 14, 2008, 09:05 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:45 PM nopolycop,
That my experiences are different than yours is what this board is all about as the moderator would have us provide a macro view of who is out there, and what their polygraph experience(s) are. Where we differ is only that you and others seek to ban all of this
NoLieGuy:
You are assuming too much when it comes to motives. I seriously doubt if any career LEO would call for the total abandonment of polygraph procedure. I certainly don't, the procedure has it's place. But, that place is not in pre-employment for civilian law enforcement, WHEN it is used as the break-point for whether a person gets a job or not. It is simply too inaccurate for that purpose. I haven't formed an opinion as whether or not it should be used as a fact finding tool for LEO screening, I am conflicted about that.
I do know my own experiences though, and what I have read here and elsewhere. American citizens deserve more than being branded as being dishonest when they are routinely called such by trade school graduates. Polygraph errors effect people long term, not just for that one particular job where the false positive occured. In any BI packet, it is always asked if they have taken a polygraph before, and what those results are. If one states they failed a previous one, they are assumed to be a liar from the beginning, and likely will fail the next one too. Gotta go, time is money.
If it is "too inaccurate for that" why would it be accurate enough in any situation??
The fact that a false positive follows you forever is real ( even though Sackett think it's just whinning ) for this reason it is iportant to stop the use of these unscientific "tests".
TheNoLieGuy4U
I now believe I understand your fixation on belittleing George and I feel compelled to give you the benefit of my experience.
In '96 I had a stroke affecting my left side. It caused a fixation of hating and belittleing cops even though I aspired to be one at an early age. Strokes are very debilitating both phsysically and mentally. What I am about to say is intended to help you not to be derogatory and it is very difficult and takes a great deal if intestinal fortitude to accomplish.
First, someone has to realize that the stroke affects one's rational thinking. The victem will not recognize it and strongly denies that there is a mental change taking place. Fortunately, I have a very intelligent wife who recognized the change starting to take place in my thinking process and got me professional help. With medication and mental exercise I started returning to my old self. At that point I started realizing my physical impairment and made the determination that I was not going through life crippled. I hit the gym and started pumping iron. Now I was doing strong mental and physical exercises. I can't explain the pain except to say horrible. The people who knew my fighting spirit had confidense that I would overcome and I did. In about 3 years my left side was as good as my right if not better. At 77 I still pump iron. Can't attest to my mental abilities. Not that I economically need to, I still do hard labor at my mine. People tell me that I live to work. I say no, I work to live.
I just wanted to give you the benefit of my experience. How you take it is up to you.
Good luck in your recovery.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 14, 2008, 10:57 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 14, 2008, 09:05 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:45 PM nopolycop,
That my experiences are different than yours is what this board is all about as the moderator would have us provide a macro view of who is out there, and what their polygraph experience(s) are. Where we differ is only that you and others seek to ban all of this
NoLieGuy:
You are assuming too much when it comes to motives. I seriously doubt if any career LEO would call for the total abandonment of polygraph procedure. I certainly don't, the procedure has it's place. But, that place is not in pre-employment for civilian law enforcement, WHEN it is used as the break-point for whether a person gets a job or not. It is simply too inaccurate for that purpose. I haven't formed an opinion as whether or not it should be used as a fact finding tool for LEO screening, I am conflicted about that.
I do know my own experiences though, and what I have read here and elsewhere. American citizens deserve more than being branded as being dishonest when they are routinely called such by trade school graduates. Polygraph errors effect people long term, not just for that one particular job where the false positive occured. In any BI packet, it is always asked if they have taken a polygraph before, and what those results are. If one states they failed a previous one, they are assumed to be a liar from the beginning, and likely will fail the next one too. Gotta go, time is money.
If it is "too inaccurate for that" why would it be accurate enough in any situation??
The fact that a false positive follows you forever is real ( even though Sackett think it's just whinning ) for this reason it is iportant to stop the use of these unscientific "tests".
Because, I feel all sex offenders should be doing their full sentance anyway. when they are released early, with restrictions such as taking polygraphs, that's better than nothing. Frankly, sex offenders should be locked up and forgotten about. so, using the poly on them is not a concern of mine, waterboarding should be allowed too.
As far as criminal investigations, if there is already reasonable suspicion that the person committed the crime, and that person wants to take a polygraph to clear his name, then that is okay. But, the LE agency should not automatically take this at faith value, but continue to investigate, simply using the passed polygraph another piece of evidence. Conversly, because someone fails a polygraph, that doesn't mean the LE Agency stops looking for other suspects. it is just another piece of evidence.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 14, 2008, 11:28 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 14, 2008, 10:57 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 14, 2008, 09:05 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Mar 13, 2008, 11:45 PM nopolycop,
That my experiences are different than yours is what this board is all about as the moderator would have us provide a macro view of who is out there, and what their polygraph experience(s) are. Where we differ is only that you and others seek to ban all of this
NoLieGuy:
You are assuming too much when it comes to motives. I seriously doubt if any career LEO would call for the total abandonment of polygraph procedure. I certainly don't, the procedure has it's place. But, that place is not in pre-employment for civilian law enforcement, WHEN it is used as the break-point for whether a person gets a job or not. It is simply too inaccurate for that purpose. I haven't formed an opinion as whether or not it should be used as a fact finding tool for LEO screening, I am conflicted about that.
I do know my own experiences though, and what I have read here and elsewhere. American citizens deserve more than being branded as being dishonest when they are routinely called such by trade school graduates. Polygraph errors effect people long term, not just for that one particular job where the false positive occured. In any BI packet, it is always asked if they have taken a polygraph before, and what those results are. If one states they failed a previous one, they are assumed to be a liar from the beginning, and likely will fail the next one too. Gotta go, time is money.
If it is "too inaccurate for that" why would it be accurate enough in any situation??
The fact that a false positive follows you forever is real ( even though Sackett think it's just whinning ) for this reason it is iportant to stop the use of these unscientific "tests".
Because, I feel all sex offenders should be doing their full sentance anyway. when they are released early, with restrictions such as taking polygraphs, that's better than nothing. Frankly, sex offenders should be locked up and forgotten about. so, using the poly on them is not a concern of mine, waterboarding should be allowed too.
As far as criminal investigations, if there is already reasonable suspicion that the person committed the crime, and that person wants to take a polygraph to clear his name, then that is okay. But, the LE agency should not automatically take this at faith value, but continue to investigate, simply using the passed polygraph another piece of evidence. Conversly, because someone fails a polygraph, that doesn't mean the LE Agency stops looking for other suspects. it is just another piece of evidence.
Hi Nonpoly
I agree about sex offenders I would throw the key away too.
My concern is that using poly's even on them is a waste cause the results cannot be relied on.
Same holds true in a criminal investigation. Unless the threat of a poly can yeild a cofirmed confession then .... if the results cannot be relied on to show guilt or not then why do them? And if the results are not admissable in court then are the results really "evidence"?
A stroke is a serious thing. My uncle Jim had one a couple years before he died and was incoherent.
This might well be the reason for "thenolieguy"s lack of judgement and cogent thought. All due respect intended.
Hi T.M.,
No lack of judgement here !!! I have recovered and one might say that by contribution I have put my two cents, or perhaps two bits in here. Most things in life for me are pretty black and white, as they are for you.
Regarding Al-Queda, has anybody heard about examiner progress in Cuba ? I have every confidence that most Al-Queda or other Islamic terrorist groups would not absorb the CM materials, and are tested with success, as I believe most break in captivity and want a "deal". What do you think ?
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 15, 2008, 03:31 AM
I have every confidence that most Al-Queda or other Islamic terrorist groups would not absorb the CM materials, and are tested with success, as I believe most break in captivity and want a "deal". What do you think ?
According to others here, CM's don't work anyway, so why does it matter if the 'absorb" them or not? In fact, we are led to believe that it is easy to catch people using CM's, so wouldn't it be a good thing if Al-Queda operatives attempted to employ CM's as explained in this site?
Hi,
Al Queda will do what they will and they are not my concern directly; rather what WE do is of concern to me when there is a fifth collum effort to directly or indirectly assist them, and particulary by an American citizen; and most especially by a former Intel Officer.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 16, 2008, 12:58 AM Hi,
Al Queda will do what they will and they are not my concern directly; rather what WE do is of concern to me when there is a fifth collum effort to directly or indirectly assist them, and particulary by an American citizen; and most especially by a former Intel Officer.
NLG4U
Okay, let's try a couple more direct questions.
Do you believe counter-measures CAN work in a Control Question Test?
Do you believe that counter-measures are effectively discovered the vast majority of the time?
NLG4U
Okay, let's try a couple more direct questions.
Do you believe counter-measures CAN work in a Control Question Test?
Do you believe that counter-measures are effectively discovered the vast majority of the time?
My answer to the utility of the CM countermeasure question attempts are best represented in my Three Musketeers submission. To clarify, I would say that I believe you have no way of really tracking this successes you claim. Most of the posters here are from those who DID NOT get the job, or any successive job with a poly test. That group is talking, but only talking about what they DID NOT achieve. Second, those who used CM's, but perhaps too little, made no difference in the outcome. Those who used too much stood out as physical countermeasures are detectable, and mental countermeasures are being picked up via the measure of what is known as "Drift". Again, none of this is perfect, but we all agree technology only gets better with time.
You ask then, what about those who did CM's just right ? Well in regard to an applicant, they may not have passed their overall background, or may have been out competed by another applicant, or simply not worked out in the special cultures they would have to adapt to. There really is no way of tracking this for your benefit, as the agencies are not talking to you, and those caught do not report this on this site. What I believe is that if you go into a polygraph test with a deceptive practice in mind that this is then a contant variable, and will show in the overall micro question, or macro test, or otherwise in the greater background.
The mindset recommended here is not much different than the kid in grade school who was a smart kid with a flawed personality who tried to influence those not as sharp to cheat. When they were caught could the smart kid really expect not to be punished when he said to the school authority "I was only trying to help" ? Ofcourse not, he would be appropriately spanked. Same said for the others. All Brats.
NoPolyCop,
Your position would seem to be quite different from the moderator. Perhaps that is because you have seen a bit as an LEO of specific issue cases solved, but object to the use in the P.E. setting based on an examiner with a bad personality you met. It seems you allow for the reality that there are some good examiners (no different than good cops / and bad cops), and that there are those employed who want to provide your department with no less than the best applicant for the few jobs ie; the best use of the tax payers money.
The polygraph records what it says it records in each respective channel. It can not both work and not work at the same time. Such tests take place when properly done in an environment free of artificial stimulation (noises, disruptions). Your attempt to self stimulate to create a new reality simply causes an unknown variable which either is too weak when poorly done, too aggressive causing charts out of the norm and rejected. or even if done right does not have a way to be tracked as I have seen so very few posters here who claim this, rather I / we read about those who either failed a test, or are not reapplying (Quitters). Therefore your arguments REALLY traces back to the human element of all of this or testing environment, and not the device itself. By the way, I have a problem with my toaster. Sometimes despite my hunger being a constant every morning, sometimes the toast is a bit light, and on other days it is a bit dark. Rarely, it is perfect, but I live with it and move on with my day. I would not be so obsessed to start a website like Anti-Toaster.com
Hi Folks,
There seems to be a recurring mantra given birth from some simpleton's mind that must be dealt with intellectually. Some Anti-Poly fans say if CM's don't work anyway, then what is the problem. Answer: ATTEMPTS COUNT !!! and so many otherwise deserving young folks who are in desperate short supply to enter law enforcement take the advice here, and the ATTEMPT to deceive can ONLY be perceived as a lie, and not rewarded.
So then, if CM's did work as the moderator suggested, why so many folks on this website who have not fulfilled their dreams via working for some agency or the other as those who have, as claimed, a clean background could easily reapply. Agencies are desperately short handed putting the numbers on your side as quite often standards have been lowered.
Therefore, how many of you, well intended, employed counter measures as a follower of the moderator, and were either passed over when not told your CM's were detected, or were confronted; and otherwise could have had a job. I would begin to wonder if a favor was done for you, or you took bad advice which got you nothing.
Your motivation was to come to this site for answers. They may not be the answers you wanted to hear, but you must seperate out someone's theories and feelings, or preferences about the way they would like the world to be from reality. Most governments are quite pragmatic in their approaches with ofcourse budget concerns. That some don't like the way things are done, is quite different from the way it must get done.
TheNoLieGuy4U
It is an unfortunate fact that the standards of this country have been lowered, and still in a downward trend, in every arena i.e. academics, morality, legislative and all kinds of government agencies. It's abominable that any LE agency would lower their standard in order to put a body behind a badge. These lower standards in charge of protecting us!!!? Are you saying agencies like the FBI and CIA has lowered their standards? Then why are they not hiring but small percentages of their applicants? Is it due to the fact the applicants can't meet the lower standards or are you attributing it to this website? Actually it seems the latter which is pure fallacy. It appears that this website has put such a burr under your saddle that it has blinded you to the more serious problems facing our nation.
I have been trying for many years to upgrade our standards or at least hold them to status quo. I get a lot of complainers but very little help. With your experience in government work, why don't you turn your energy toward raising the standards of this country instead of continually bashing George and this website with the same old rhetoric day in and day out with not a chance of changing anyone's mind. This site, as you polygraphers say of the polygraph, is not going away any time soon no matter how hard you try. So come on. Turn your energies to useful endevors. As you say, be constructive and quit trying to be destructive.
TwoBlock,
We agree that it is unfortunate that standards should not be lowered. It is a mathamatical fact that since the pill came into effect that couples simply aren't having as many children in this generation from which we choose future employees now ie; the post Vietnam war era youth. My statements are that I have observed that few are available from which the agencies you mentioned can choose from, which answers your question about their hiring so few of the applicants that come through the door. AND Yes, many of the applicants can't even meet the lower standards as well. There is no burr under my saddle, as my horse is in a comfortable pasture.
You say: I have been trying for many years to upgrade our standards or at least hold them to status quo. I get a lot of complainers but very little help. With your experience in government work, why don't you turn your energy toward raising the standards of this country instead of continually bashing George and this website with the same old rhetoric day in and day out with not a chance of changing anyone's mind.
I wonder in what way you have tried to upgrade standards, as your efforts in either trying to eliminate polygraph or if in league with those who encourage the use of CM's don't speak to that. It is only because I have held the standards high that I stand out here among the few. What you call the same old rhetoric is only a messege you can't absorb, fail to recognize, or won't submit to. Good Men and Women conduct polygraph tests everyday. They do so not as the oddballs of the forensic community, but rather having talents in both the right and left brain capacities. They derive great satisfaction in both being in the foundational efforts of helping those who come prepared to be truthful for an easy hiring decision on their part (and they need not be perfect), or screening out those who would hide those elements of their background (rationalization, outright withholding, false information, etc.). They are not in a popularity contest and don't care that you like them or don't like them, and only that the job get done right. Like any human being they have both good days and bad days. From what I read here you folks have tried to demonize them and their instrumentation as if they are not trying to help you actually get the job / meet their agencies needs.
When I speak of lower standards ask yourself this. If you had an Uncle who was a nuclear scientist who had weapons grade uranium knowledge. He was trusted in his community to keep that knowledge safe from those who would do this nation harm, but then was found to be assisting the Iranians now with their intelligence program to build weapons to either harm us or our allies; how would you feel about him then. Would you continue to claim him in your family ? Would you want his lowering of the standards of conduct of someone in his former position to be preserved and just glossed over. I don't think so. I am contructively trying to wipe clear the glass from which you look at this issue and this man who carries a torch of treachery. There is nothing destructive about my writings to you, as I only want to preserve standards as you do, and I simply want you to acknowledge that government is working with the best tools it has, and in this time frame we live in part of that process is with the polygraph. Logic dictates when that capability is surpassed, the newer tool would be used. We are not going backwards, and just rolling the dice because applicants say "trust me".
NoLieGuy4U
You have seen proof of my efforts in the legislative arena on these boards and you still ask questions as to my efforts. Gee Whiz!! Polygraph is the very least of my efforts and yet you try to portray it as the major portion. My glass is clear. Yours seem to be clouded by your hatred of George and this website. I have showed you proof of my efforts outside of the polygraph. You have been challenged to show proof of your strong accusations against George and as yet you haven't/can't provided one iota of proof. Until you do your accusations will fall on deaf ears and you will be awarded no credibility here.
If I was told my scientist uncle was aiding Irainian intelligence with atomic secrets, I would say prove it beyound a shadow of a doubt and I will deal with him severally. If you can't, then our family will deal with you severally.
If you have knowledge of an ongoing investigation into George's activities, and you are making that knowledge available on a public website, then you are a traitor to the investigation. If, on the other hand, you can't prove your accusations, well --- you could be in trouble from either direction.
If you can't prove your accusations, then I predict that you will be ignored by the readers of this site from now on. It starts with me right now. I can better use my time trying to hold to the little standards we have left.
Polygraphers are intent on having the last word. So go ahead.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Mar 16, 2008, 11:33 AMNLG4U
Okay, let's try a couple more direct questions.
Do you believe counter-measures CAN work in a Control Question Test?
Do you believe that counter-measures are effectively discovered the vast majority of the time?
My answer to the utility of the CM countermeasure question attempts are best represented in my Three Musketeers submission.
[/color]
Bull:
I don't want a reference to some stupid fairy tale, answer my questions directly, NLG4U.
NoPolyCop,
Okay, let's try a couple more direct questions.Do you believe counter-measures CAN work in a Control Question Test?
MY ANSWER: In regard to PHYSICAL countermeasure attempts, probably not. I say this based on the Examiner having modern computerized equipment with motion sensors. The failure of the test subject to cooperate would simply cause at best an inconclusive outcome, or perhaps have such efforts be regarded as deceptive in their own right, which--- not surprisingly, would result in that person being interrogated. Therefore, I don't believe such a test subject would create a pure 180 degree outcome as you are dreaming / hoping for.
In regard to mental countermeasures, you assume the variable that the "Performer" / test subject is using just the right amount vs. too little or too much, and that they could do so consistently. If such an ability were true, then why would we test intel sources who may have been trained in same. The simple truth is, no government has been able to train their personnel to "Beat" a polygraph test should the other side have had them in a position to test them. Rather, they know at best they could cause an Inconclusive; again given the variables of modern day equipment and a properly trained examiner.
Do you believe that counter-measures are effectively discovered the vast majority of the time?
Your question presumes the level of training and equipment are consistent with each Examiner for a consistant answer to this. What I believe is true is that based on gutter rats like Doug Williams, and turn coats who assembled this site; that the polygraph community has never been better. You folks gave them the very attention they needed for funding and improvements. Further, that most of the techniques discussed here are / were oriented toward the analog instrument without motion sensors. Most of those cold war era examiners are now retired, and a younger generation of computer examiners quite dedicated have the best tools and training we all pay for. You know what, they just can't get enough of such professionals. Don't believe that ? DACA is backed up over a year's wait, and agencies are begging for talent. That sort of goes against the grain of what you see here, but this place is a fantasy of the failed, a dream of the would be deceptive. You may not like them, but don't blame the Centurion for standing their post with their given general orders.
NoPolyCop, it is too bad that you had the experiences you did, but don't blame the inadimate instrument as it is merely a recording device. Rather, look to the human element as to where your objections are, as that is where Medicine, Aviation, Construction, Polygraph, and other human endeavors fall short. That we persue each of these is not a sin, as the persuit of greater truth / realization is inherant in all mankind. Not all mankind is inherantly Truthful.
Now, was that covering what you have asked thorough enough ?
Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 22, 2008, 12:29 AM NoPolyCop,
Okay, let's try a couple more direct questions.Do you believe counter-measures CAN work in a Control Question Test?
Do you believe that counter-measures are effectively discovered the vast majority of the time?
Now, was that covering what you have asked thorough enough ?
No. Because an honest polygrapher would have answered the questions like this.
1) They CAN work if the examinee can either produce physiological reactions during the control questions, or minimize reactions during the relevant questions.
2) Actually, we don't have a clue, because logic would dictate that if countermeasures are successful, we would not be detecting them.
See, NLG, that wasn't so tough, was it?
"n.p.c.",
why woud you answer the very question you are asking us, examiners?
It seems rather rude to support your assertions that we don't answer your question when you simply ask, then answer the very questions you ask with your own rhetoric, then accuse us examiners of not answering your questions...
Sackett
Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 22, 2008, 11:56 PM"n.p.c.",
why woud you answer the very question you are asking us, examiners?
It seems rather rude to support your assertions that we don't answer your question when you simply ask, then answer the very questions you ask with your own rhetoric, then accuse us examiners of not answering your questions...
Sackett
Cause he know the answer and can't get a straight one from you.
You think??
Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 22, 2008, 11:56 PM"n.p.c.",
why woud you answer the very question you are asking us, examiners?
Sackett
Let me answer your question directly and honestly. ;D
It is because by doing so, I lend credibility to this site, by exposing the unwillingness for polygraphers like you to answer direct questions directly. NOTE: This is an example of a direct answer.
You see, my dear friend Sackett, my questioning is not done so I personally can find out the answers. If that was so, I would PM you. No, the questions I ask are asked to help educate the "guest" readers of this site, (of which there are 20 or more at any given time). Educate enough people about the fallacy of polygraphy, and eventually polygraph is debunked to the extent all it is good for is a game show prop.
The unfortunate issue is that it does have some merit, but because of polygraphers being unwilling to act honestly in their profession, they are killing their own goose. NOTE: This is an example of an explanation.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Jan 10, 2006, 09:37 AMThe index page on the website www.tawhed.ws where the HTML version of the article, "Usturah jahaz kashf al-kidhb" (The Myth of the Lie Detector) is listed, which provides links to this and other articles on intelligence and security matters, indicates that the article on the lie detector has been viewed more than 4,200 times:
http://www.tawhed.ws/c?i=44
The same page also indicates that the article has been downloaded (it's available as a zipped Microsoft Word document here (http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=3165&a=d)) some 740 times.
Note that this article is still on-line and has now been viewed some 13,851 times and downloaded some 2,750 times.
The jihadi article, "The Myth of the Lie Detector" (أسطورة جهاز كشف الكذب), is still available on www.tawhed.ws, though it now has a new URL:
http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=7t40y4fs
As of 12 August 2009, it has been viewed 15,930 times and downloaded 3,703 times. A banner advertising the article has also been added to www.tawhed.ws. (See attached graphics.)