WCBS-TV reports that the FBI has conducted a polygraph interrogation of Nathan Johnson, who was arrested (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/25/police-investigate-possible-plot-kill-obama/) on Monday, 25 August 2008 along with Tharin Gartrell and Shawn Robert Adolf. From a detention facility, Johnson spoke with WCBS reporter Brian Maass:
http://wcbstv.com/video/?id=116567@wcbs.dayport.com&cid=48
The WCBS report does not mention the results of Johnson's polygraph examination.
While polygraph "testing" may be useful for getting admissions from naive and gullible suspects, it has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml), is inherently biased against the truthful, and yet easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures (https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml). It is to be hoped that the FBI and other agencies investigating this potential plot are not foolish enough to allow pseudoscientific polygraph results to guide their investigation.
People who read and post on this site would do well to remember that the founder of this web site co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.
This justifiably calls his veracity into question on just about any issue.
People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 26, 2008, 11:04 AMPeople who read and post on this site would do well to remember that the founder of this web site co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.
This justifiably calls his veracity into question on just about any issue.
People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.
Sancho Panza
If George had a false positive on his polygraph, and that fueled his "crusade" as you put it, in my opinion is a great thing. That is how in OUR country we have historically righted wrongs. You may want to augment your extensive education and fancy talk with a simple history book read.
I and countless others that have been a victim of your silly box owe a debt of gratitude to people like George that take the time to fight for a just cause.
I have never seen where George has encouraged anyone to lie. In fact I have read posts from him telling people that ask how to lie and beat a poly that this site is not here to encourage lying.
Talk about taking statement out of context, your the king Sancho.
I have seen where he has shown how easily your "test" can be fooled.
Unfortunately, I didn't have this info because I felt I didn't need to have it I WAS BEING TRUTHFUL IN ALL MY ANSWERS.
I was also unaware at the time that polygraph was bias against the truthful in false positives.
And as for the fear mongering that you engage in, namely that George is somehow an enemy of our country because he dares to shed light on your scam shows the lows your ilk will go, to save your job. Most truly intelligent and now informed people will see through your non-sense.
The only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?
Sancho Panza
QuotePeople who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.
Yeah, I'll bet even money that George is behind the National Research Council's report which concluded polygraph screening of employees does more harm than good. :o
QuoteThe only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?
You have to fight fire with fire. Polygraph interrogators lie all the time in an attempt to get information they can distort, and blow out of all proportion to disqualify an applicant, or ruin the career of an employee.
Lying to a con artist is not really lying.
Your whole post is example of the distortions perpetrated by polygraph examiners. George wrote his book after being conned (like a lot of us here) during a polygraph. He found out the same thing was happening to many others. He researched the polygraph, saw what a sham it was, and put together an informative website so people could learn the con behind the polygraph and be better prepared.
TC
SanchoPanza
I have taken note of your capable ability to debate. So why are you parroting the likes NoLieGuy4u and Skip Webb in personal attacks on George? In my openion this deminishes your debates. It is very evident that polygraphers would like for this website to go away even though all of you say it is helping the polygraph industry. Personal attacks is not the way to do it. Don't you think that belittles your industry? Quoting and making factual statements wins debates.
In the past I have been guily of personal attacks in reaction to derogatory statements made to me. However, I am trying very hard to not lend credence to such trash.
I think it is a fair question to ask someone why they would believe someone who wrote a book that endorses lying is going to tell them the truth.
Mr. Cullen told us he believes that lying isn't lying depending on to whom you are lying. I find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects.
You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack on Dr. Mashcke when my comments concerning his book are true and verifiable from its contents. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck common sense indicates its probably a duck.
Do you believe that Dr. Mashcke would be critical of polygraph if he had somehow managed to pass his test? Do you think his site would exist if he had somehow managed to pass his polygraph test?
Do you?
One of Dr. Mashcke's biggest supporters and noted polygraph opponent is former FBI Agent Drew Richardson. Mr. Richardson should be not only very familiar with sensitive National Security issues from his work at the FBI he should be as familiar if not more familiar wiith Dr. Mashcke than just about anyone here.
On at least 2 occasions I asked Mr. Richardson the following questions:
Based on everything you know about Dr. Mashcke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashcke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not? Think about it and be truthful.
Mr. Richardson has never answered those questions. I can only presume that based on his other postings he certainly isn't worried about telling me something I may not agree with. That leaves me strongly suspecting that he doesn't want to hurt Dr. Mashcke's feelings by giving me a truthful response.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 26, 2008, 12:52 PMThe only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?
Sancho Panza
Sancho,
You seem to be ignoring the point.
Personally I don't care if Charles Manson discovered that Polygraph was a scam and uncovered it for all to see.
You keep dismissing everyones personal experiences because they cannot be proven to your satisfaction.
Truth is you have NO proof that polygraph has any effect in detecting deception.
The fact that some one may or may not lie is irrelevant when it comes to the validity of the polygraph and that is why this site exists.
The fact still remains that many experts have dismissed polygraphs ability to do anything when it comes to detecting deception and the 98% accuracy rate is a lie ( and a convenient on at that )
So go ahead and attack George if you must his work here is valid and is spreading the truth behind the "lie detector" a term BTW that is well accepted by the general public as a description of what it can do. However I have read numerous posts from your "crew" that say that it is not really a lie detector.
So who is lying?? and who is promoting lying?? Hmmm Sancho? :o
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 26, 2008, 06:27 PMI think it is a fair question to ask someone why they would believe someone who wrote a book that endorses lying is going to tell them the truth.
Mr. Cullen told us he believes that lying isn't lying depending on to whom you are lying. I find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects.
You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack on Dr. Mashcke when my comments concerning his book are true and verifiable from its contents. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck common sense indicates its probably a duck.
Do you believe that Dr. Mashcke would be critical of polygraph if he had somehow managed to pass his test? Do you think his site would exist if he had somehow managed to pass his polygraph test?
Do you?
One of Dr. Mashcke's biggest supporters and noted polygraph opponent is former FBI Agent Drew Richardson. Mr. Richardson should be not only very familiar with sensitive National Security issues from his work at the FBI he should be as familiar if not more familiar wiith Dr. Mashcke than just about anyone here.
On at least 2 occasions I asked Mr. Richardson the following questions:
Based on everything you know about Dr. Mashcke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashcke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not? Think about it and be truthful.
Mr. Richardson has never answered those questions. I can only presume that based on his other postings he certainly isn't worried about telling me something I may not agree with. That leaves me strongly suspecting that he doesn't want to hurt Dr. Mashcke's feelings by giving me a truthful response.
Sancho Panza
I cannot expect to guess what George or anyone else "would" do had thing gone differently.
I would like to think that he would have joined the ranks of experts in the field that found that polygraphs do not detect anything when it come to lies, and exposed it as he's done here. Just my humble opinion mind you.
Now better question is:
Does anyone think that Mr. Sancho or any of his cronies would be posting here if he didn't have to worry about the truth being told?
I THINK NOT!!
There have been many people that have stood up for truth regardless of personal gain.
Too bad Sancho you cannot be included in that group.
SanchoPanza
To answer your question - No I do not believe this site would exist had he rightfully passed his polygraph. In fact, I believe he has posted that it would not exist had he passed. What would be the reason. Who would raise hell for something good that happened to them. Trimarco failed him on every damn question. How many times have you seen this happen? Be completely truthful now. If you were the QC entity on this graph, would flunking every question raise a red flag? It should.
You seem to be insinuating that George went out of the country in order to teach criminals how to pass the poly. He was posting his experiences quite a while before this site existed and I believe his employment was in The Hague then. His stated purpose for this website, and I believe him, was to educate prospective LEOs about the polygraph. He cannot control who visits it.
NoLieGuy4U and Skip Webb have actually accused him of passing secrets to "Evil Iran". The difference between George and I is that I would have immediately, if not sooner, had their asses in federal court to prove their accusations.
I don't know about your questions to Dr Richardson, but I have been in touch with George (through emails and postings) for about ten years and will tell you flat out "I would trust Dr. George Maschke with a million dollars in gold to be delivered from point A to point B".
I have never met the man in person, but hope to have that honor some day.
QuoteI find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects.
Polygraphers DO lie. The whole test is predicated on a lie. Namely, convincing the the "mark" that the test is more accurate than it really is. Intimidating them. Telling them (like Mr. Lingenfelter at NSA) told me, that there is simply no way you can lie without the machine detecting it. That is NOT TRUE, and he knows it!
I have no problem with anyone who lies to a con artist who is purposely being dishonest in an attempt to trick them.
FYI, an example of a REAL lie would be Aldrich Ames answering "NO!" to a question about unauthorized foreign contacts. You, as a polygrapher, should know this. ::)
TC
Sancho is engaging in a textbook ad hominem attack.
His original response did not deal with any of George's claims regarding the polygraph, it only attacked George's personal credibility.
The best way to handle such ad hominem attacks is to simply ignore them.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 27, 2008, 02:27 AMSancho is engaging in a textbook ad hominem attack.
His original response did not deal with any of George's claims regarding the polygraph, it only attacked George's personal credibility.
The best way to handle such ad hominem attacks is to simply ignore them.
What do you mean by origional response? My original response to this site was directed to Dr. Mashcke:
QuoteAfter a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data.
If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT study?
How is that an ad hominum attack?
If I were in fact engaging in ad hominum attack, which I'm not, it would be a fair response to the attacks upon me that have occurred on this board.
Pointing out the obvious conclusion that a person who writes a book justifying lying as well as trying to teach people how to lie successfully probably can't be trusted to tell the truth is a statement of reasonable linear determination. This isn't an unsupportable claim like those put forward by my opposition here, I can quote chapter and verse from Dr. Mashcke's own writings.
Pointing out that Notguilty1,Twoblock, etc should not only be questioning the veracity of the material they regurgitate, but its source , and why is not ad hominum attack.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 27, 2008, 06:10 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Aug 27, 2008, 02:27 AMSancho is engaging in a textbook ad hominem attack.
His original response did not deal with any of George's claims regarding the polygraph, it only attacked George's personal credibility.
The best way to handle such ad hominem attacks is to simply ignore them.
What do you mean by origional response? My original response to this site was directed to Dr. Mashcke:
QuoteAfter a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data.
If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT study?
How is that an ad hominum attack?
If I were in fact engaging in ad hominum attack, which I'm not, it would be a fair response to the attacks upon me that have occurred on this board.
Pointing out the obvious conclusion that a person who writes a book justifying lying as well as trying to teach people how to lie successfully probably can't be trusted to tell the truth is a statement of reasonable linear determination. This isn't an unsupportable claim like those put forward by my opposition here, I can quote chapter and verse from Dr. Mashcke's own writings.
Pointing out that Notguilty1,Twoblock, etc should not only be questioning the veracity of the material they regurgitate, but its source , and why is not ad hominum attack.
Sancho Panza
Oooh !!
2 Spelling errors
3 Grammattical errors
Horror Of Horrors.
SanchoPanza
Please re-read my two posts on this string and explain to me how you consider these a personal attack. You asked me a pointed question and I gave you a pointed answer plus statements about others. I, also, asked you pointed questions to which you have yet to answer. Are they forthcoming?
I consider my involvement here as debating. Not added-hominy-tacks.
Sancho Panza
You have posted to this thread since my last post and you chose not to respond to my questions. Are you going to answer or are you going to pull a nonombre and cut-a-chogie? I answered your questions.
You say that I should question the veracity of my material. Are you trying to tell everyone that Trimarco didn't fail George on all ten of his questions? The results has been posted on this website man. I think you should question the veracity of the material that you regurgitate. Quit complaining that I am making personal attacks on you. That's a cop out and you know it. Looks like you may be running out of material with which to debate.
It has been suggested that you really are Skip Webb. Lately it sure is food for thought. I don't give a tinkers damn whether you are Skip Webb or Ichabod Crane, a debate is a debate and if one side doesn't answer a challenge the loss is automatic. At least that was the rule when I was in college.
Sancho Panza
Correction of my first sentance. It should have read something like "since I posed the questions to you"
Twoblock: First allow me to apologize for lumping you in with Notguilty1, Polytek ETC when I voiced my complaint concerning ad hominum attacks. You have not engaged in those with me, but frankly with the flurry of activity of trying to engage in debate with several people at a time, unfortunately this group seems to run together like the tigers under Sambo's tree.
As to your questions: Sometimes they require a bit of research in order to respond.
you wrote"
QuoteTrimarco failed him on every damn question. How many times have you seen this happen? Be completely truthful now. If you were the QC entity on this graph, would flunking every question raise a red flag?
Let me respond based on what I have read. First In "Too hot a Potato" Dr. Maschke states,
QuoteI learned that although SA Trimarco had only asked me about counterintelligence issues during his post-test interrogation, he had in fact deemed me to have been deceptive with regard to all of the relevant questions.
That is Dr. Maschke's interpretation of what he read in the report and that is not exactly what he later quotes reportedly from SA Trimarco's actual finding:
QuoteIt is the opinion of this examiner that the applicant was deceptive when responding to the listed relevant questions in Series I and Series II.
From what I have read, screening exams are not individual question specific when it comes to a determination of deception. What that means is that if reactions indicative of deception to any relevant question on a polygraph chart during a screening exam then the examinee has failed the entire test. Can it be truthfully said that the examinee failed every question? No. That is not what SA Trimarco is quoted as saying. Can the examiner determine which specific question or question the examinee is lying to. No. I don't think so, not without running something called a breakdown test. I found the details in the DODPI employment manual on this site. I'm not sure but I think this breakdown test thing is fairly recent. The concept may represent a change in protocol designed to reduce error
Since flunking every question on the test is not what SA Trimarco was quoted as stating in his report and I haven't found any literature that says it is possible to fail every question on a polygraph test, your other question is moot. As to whether or not SA Trimarco ran this breakdown test or if he even knew that a breakdown test was needed, well he would have to answer that.
Sancho Panza
QuoteOK pay attention. ANY scientific test by definition must have an error rate. If there is no error rate it cannot be called a scientific test. Scientific tests have accuracy rates and error rates. Accuracy Rate is what you have left after you subtract the error rate from 100% .Error rates are made up of False Positives and False Negatives. In Polygraph a False Positive is where the results of the examination indicate deception when the subject is telling the truth. A False Negative in Polygraph means that the results indicate truthfulness when the subject was in fact lying regarding a relevant issue. If you add the number of false positives to the number of false negatives and calculate the total as a percentage of the tests in a given group, you have the error rate.
Just because the polygraph has something in common (error/accuracy rate) with a scientific test like DNA, doesn't make it a scientific test. That is a false syllogism:
ALL scientific tests have error rates.
Polygraph tests have error rates.
Polygraph tests are therefore SCIENTIFIC.
Also, just because polygraphy makes use of scientifically measurable data, doesn't make it scientific either.
You must also establish that there is a DIRECT, UNEQUIVOCAL, and CAUSAL relationship between the F3 responses measured by your magic box and deception. And the relationship between variables must be shown to be statistically significant. Read the quote at the bottom of my posts.
When I failed my test at the NSA, no follow investigation was even done to establish whether I was deceptive on the test. It was totally subjective, unsubstantiated, unscientific and unverified claim that I was deceptive on the test. So how could an error/accuracy rate be established with data that is not even shown to be in error or accurate?
The SCIENTISTS at the NAS/NRC didn't seem to think the polygraph was scientific. So who should we believe?
SP,
This is the "original post" to which I was referring:
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 26, 2008, 11:04 AMPeople who read and post on this site would do well to remember that the founder of this web site co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.
This justifiably calls his veracity into question on just about any issue.
People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.
Sancho Panza
I don't see how anyone could read that and fail to conclude it is an ad hominem attack against George.
QuoteWhen I failed my test at the NSA, no follow investigation was even done to establish whether I was deceptive on the test
Croddy V FBI pretty much established that NSA doesn't have to conduct followup investigations on applicants to verify polygraph results if they don't want to.
When a hiring authority uses polygraph screening tests for employment purposes they accept the possibility of false positives and false negatives and adjust their scoring criteria to purposely reduce the likelihood of a false negative with the full knowledge that by reducing false negatives they will have an increased rate of false positives. They can do this because the potential cost to National Security is much greater from a false negative than the consequences of failing to hire an applicant because of a false positive. They are the ones with the jobs to fill and they get to decide who they will hire and what criteria they will use. Polygraph employment tests for government jobs are legal. When you entered the application process you were not entitled to a job and they were not obligated to hire you whether you passed or failed your polygraph exam. You really don't know why you were rejected by NSA it may have been something in your background they didn't like. One of your neighbors may have told them some negative information about you. Maybe it was a combination of polygraph and negative background. YOU DON"T KNOW. You just assume it was only because of polygraph because they told you failed your test. Neither one if us know if you really failed your test or maybe the spooks at NSA just told you failed to get you into a "Stress Interview" situation to monitor how or IF you react under pressure.
If NSA has 25 jobs and 50 applicants 40 of which pass their polygraph test. Why should they bother at all with the 10 who failed? It would waste time and resources because they have enough people who passed to fill their needs?
You can Boo Hoo all you want, but NSA didn't owe you anything, They used a screening tool that it was legal for them to use and you don't have to like it, but you need to learn to live with it.
As to your constant commentary about the NAS study, maybe you should read the whole thing. If you did, you would find that it is not the scathing indictment of polygraph you seem to think it is. You would also find that the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing.
Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available.
They also lost any semblance of a balanced inquiry by inviting persons against polygraph to offer testimony and prohibiting polygraph experts from giving testimony at any point during their review.
All that being said, in the five years since the release of their report, completed studies and studies now under way have taken NAS recommendations and included them in their research.
QuoteRead the quote at the bottom of my posts.
I read it and I tried to find some study conducted by or paper or book published by Dr. Zimbardo that contained the statement. I even went to his website for information. THE ONLY PLACE I CAN FIND ANY REFERENCE TO THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT IS IN POSTINGS ON THIS SITE. Did you read this in a study somewhere or are you simply quoting from someone elses posting. Please provide some sort of reliable reference for the quote. if one exists.
Sancho Panza
Sergeant
Dr. Maschke opens his credibility and the directionality of his moral compass to debate by virtue of his book and his postings on this site. Challenging his character or criticizing his behavior under these circumstances is not ad hominum attack because the man is hopelessly entangled in his message.
Are you saying he didn't write the book? Are you saying that it doesn't contain what I said it does?
Are you saying that he didn't create this site because he was angry because he didn't pass his test?
Are you saying that his book and his website doesn't attempt to aid criminals and enemies of the United States? Are you saying that Dr. Maschke is unaware of how his book is used or who it is being used by? Don't be ridiculous. Whatever I think of his position and ideas, I don't think he is stupid or naive.
Good Grief Sergeant! Look at the number of posts on this site by criminals seeking information on countermeasures. Translated excerpts from his book have been found in terrorist training manuals.
Sancho Panza
9news.com of Colorado reports that Shawn Adolf, who has been charged along with Tharin Gartrell and Nathan Johnson on drug and weapons charges, has passed a polygraph examination in which he denied the existence of a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama:
Quotehttp://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=98557
DENVER - 9Wants to Know investigators have learned one of the three men being investigated after allegedly making threats against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) now says there never was such a plan.
Federal law enforcement sources say Shawn Adolf passed a polygraph exam in which he stated that he and two other Colorado men facing federal weapons and drug charges never had a plan to shoot Obama.
Adolf was the fugitive who jumped out of a six story window at the Cherry Creek Hotel in Glendale on Sunday morning when local and federal law enforcement officials knocked on his hotel door.
Adolf was arrested on seven outstanding warrants from Colorado and Texas on various charges totaling $1 million.
Law enforcement officials were lead to Adolf after an Aurora Police sergeant stopped a driver who was driving erratically just south of Hampden Avenue and Parker Road earlier on Sunday morning. Police say inside the rental car driven by Tharin Gartrell, 28, police found two rifles, scopes, a bulletproof vest, many rounds of ammunition and a rolling methamphetamine lab.
Gartrell led officials to the Denver Tech Center Hyatt Regency Hotel where they found Nathan Johnson, 32, and an unidentified woman along with more methamphetamines in a room on the third floor.
That arrest led authorities to the Cherry Creek Hotel and Adolf. After his jump from the window, Adolf was arrested. He suffered a broken ankle in the fall.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's office announced the three men didn't pose a "credible threat" threat to Obama. Federal officials described the men's plans as more "aspirational" than "operational." They told reporters the men are methamphetamine users who were making empty threats about shooting the Democratic nominee.
A video report is available on the above-linked story page, in which the polygraph results are presented as being "another reason to believe that a threat to Senator Barack Obama was not as serious as it first appeared." However, polygraph results -- having no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) and hence no evidentiary value -- are no reason to discount the alleged threats.
QuoteHowever, polygraph results -- having no scientific basis and hence no evidentiary value -- are no reason to discount the alleged threats.
Wow that's a stretch, trying to make a cause out of an incidental comment in a news story.
There are a lot of white supremacists in the US Probably more than the number of false positive polygraphs alleged on this board in the last 8 years. A great many of them use methamphetamine and own guns. I will bet somewhere close to every darned one of theses Meth-Soaked, Gun-Toting, haters of anyone who isn't white have commented to their peers about shooting the Democratic Candidate. Surprise surprise one of these tweakers get arrested on warrants and possession charges and tries to deal himself out of trouble by rolling on one of his own kind because one night while sitting around shooting meth and retouching the swastika tattoos on their genitalia his buddy said "I ought to get my rifle and shoot that $#&^*&^*%" (insert favorite racial epithet here)
Dr. Maschke really, 99% of these guys don't even know that the Candidate isn't African-American
So they arrest a few guys and begin their investigation which includes polygraph. They pass the polygraph and the entirety of the investigation (which I'm guessing is pretty darned thorough considering the governments potential embarrassment if they are wrong) confirms the polygraph results. Then along you come and try to use this information to portray polygraph in a bad light.
Well that's just WRONG. This polygraph and subsequent investigation actually is anecdotal evidence that verifies the accuracy of polygraph.
There now exists more evidence on this particular case that polygraph works than there is in your personal case that polygraph doesn't work.
Providing of course, that the press has all of the information and are reporting it accurately...
Sancho Panza
QuoteCroddy V FBI pretty much established that NSA doesn't have to conduct followup investigations on applicants to verify polygraph results if they don't want to.
When a hiring authority uses polygraph screening tests for employment purposes they accept the possibility of false positives and false negatives and adjust their scoring criteria to purposely reduce the likelihood of a false negative with the full knowledge that by reducing false negatives they will have an increased rate of false positives. They can do this because the potential cost to National Security is much greater from a false negative than the consequences of failing to hire an applicant because of a false positive. They are the ones with the jobs to fill and they get to decide who they will hire and what criteria they will use. Polygraph employment tests for government jobs are legal. When you entered the application process you were not entitled to a job and they were not obligated to hire you whether you passed or failed your polygraph exam. You really don't know why you were rejected by NSA it may have been something in your background they didn't like. One of your neighbors may have told them some negative information about you. Maybe it was a combination of polygraph and negative background. YOU DON"T KNOW. You just assume it was only because of polygraph because they told you failed your test. Neither one if us know if you really failed your test or maybe the spooks at NSA just told you failed to get you into a "Stress Interview" situation to monitor how or IF you react under pressure.
You miss my point entirely. Intentionally, probably, to avoid answering the question.
You insinuated that the polygraph is a scientific test because it, as in ACTUAL scientific tests have rates if accuracy/error.
I then point out that the above is actually a silly "false syllogism", and also point out that the accuracy of NSA pre-employment polygraphs are not even measured (no follow up). You did bring up the topic of error rates, didn't you?
Rather than respond to my point, you deflect by pointing out that NSA is not requred to follow up and that they don't owe anyone a job. That is certainly true. How could they follow up to determine error rates? The test is so subjective and varies greatly from examiner to examiner.
Truth is, the polyraph is not really a test but an interrogation disguised as a test by using a device which happens to track a scientifically measurable data set, that doesn't necessarily establish a direct, unequivocal casual relationship between it and deception.
In the name of Webb the father
Sackett the Son
and Coffey the Holy poster
amen!
Hmm Looked to me like you were whining about failing your NSA test again.
Is this your question?
QuoteThe SCIENTISTS at the NAS/NRC didn't seem to think the polygraph was scientific. So who should we believe?
The short response is that since the NAS reviewed less than 6% of the polygraph studies that were available to them. I don't think that their conclusions should be taken as the final word on polygraph accuracy, when they looked at so little of the evidence and conducted NO research on their own.
SanchoPanza
Appology accepted.
Trimarco's quote "showed deception on the listed relavant questions" tells me that "the listed" (being key words) would entail all of the relavant questions. If I wrote that kind of statement I would expect it to be interpreted as "all".
I guess we will have to yield to George and Trimarco and I don't expect Trimarco to ever venture a post on this website. At least under his name. He has had ample reason to do so in the past. However, I will stand by my assessment of Dr. Maschke.
QuoteThe short response is that since the NAS reviewed less than 6% of the polygraph studies that were available to them. I don't think that their conclusions should be taken as the final word on polygraph accuracy, when they looked at so little of the evidence and conducted NO research on their own.
Not true. They examined what little evidence there is on the polygraph and concluded:
We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures. We separately present our conclusions about scientific knowledge on the validity of polygraph and other techniques of detecting deception, about policy for employee security screening in the context of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and about the future of detection and deterrence of deception, including a recommendation for research.QuoteHmm Looked to me like you were whining about failing your NSA test again.
You can question the findings all you want, but who would tend to be more credible, an independent body of scientific researchers or a person who makes his/her living off the test and has a habit of making unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks?
TC
They reviewed 57 out of over 1000 Cullen
Hardly what I would call thorough.
Sancho Panza
PS you made a comment about Aldrich Ames the other day.
Did you know he didn't pass his polygraph?
sp
I'm going to jump into this foray for just one post. Hopefully.
There is no doubt that the NAS is a prestigious scientific research body and I have no doubt about the validity of the type of research they did on the polygraph or their conclusions. But Washington D. C. we have a problem.
Our poluted-ticians in D.C. endorsed and funded this research. Then, as usual, they shelved the results. So what good was it? Money,as usual, was wasted. So far as I can tell, the only use has been as a debate item. Correct me if I'm wrong. This happens to way too many research projects as well as most other beneficial legislation that reaches the congressional floors.
Another case in point: The Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory (SSCL) that would have benefited all mankind. So whappened to it? Approximately 7 years and two and a half billion dollars into the project a powerful idiot Senator from New York killed it because Texas sent a "woman" Republican Senator to Washington D.C. I saw and heard that statement come out of his mouth during an interview.
We need to replace the old goofballs with new people who will certainly become new goofballs but, maybe, with new goofball ideas.
Twoblock, Calling what the NAS did to generate their report "research", is a mischaracterization. They did not do any research into polygraph, and did not submit there conclusions to peer review before publishing their findings. All they did was pick 57 studies out of a thousand and give their opinion on the contents of those 57 studies.
Much like Dr. Maschke has published his opinions concerning the utility of countermeasures without conducting any scientific research to support his claim. He told me once He didn't have the money.
At least some of the NAS report (to the effect that polygraph is unreliable and unscientific) hopefully would have included the fact that examiners can exert a major influence on test outcomes.
An examiner can depress the Question Onset and answer keys several seconds before posing the CQ. Result: late response with low score.
The strongest stimulus in the test room is the examiner. The examiner can 'enhance' reactions to RQ's by deliberate inflections in his voice and accentuating specific words. Result: higher scores on RQ's
In cases where the examiner is trying hard to deliver a desired result, he may well skew the results by effecting the above behaviours.
To counteract a potentially corrupt examiner, the examinee should not sit in front of examiner facing sidewards, but should sit in-line with the examiner to his side, from where he can observe whether the examiner is attempting to manipulate the outcome.
It is because examiners can manipulate test results that they develop their 'power-over-all' attitudes and become aggressive when challenged.
Likewise, every examiner that comes to this board to debate ultimately becomes aggressive and engages in ad-hominem (take note of spelling SP) attacks.
Its pretty much the same as giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
SanchoPanza
Technically if the NAS reviewed one study, it can be called research. Can you or anyone else verify how many studies they looked at before picking the 57 to use as case review for their report?
If a lawyer reviews just one case, he will charge for research. When filing or helping to file federal mining and ADA actions, I may look at 25 or more cases before picking a half dozen for the Memorandum of Law.
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 28, 2008, 06:34 AMIf NSA has 25 jobs and 50 applicants 40 of which pass their polygraph test. Why should they bother at all with the 10 who failed? It would waste time and resources because they have enough people who passed to fill their needs?
What are the chances that one or more of the 40 people who "passed" their polygraph were being deceptive about one or more matters of substance?
I'm sure different people will offer varying opinions as to the chances, but I don't think anyone will reasonably argue that there is no chance.
What then, is the utility of polygraph screening in the absence of a disqualifying confession of some sort? At the end of the test the agency cannot be confident the people who "passed" were actually telling the truth, and they cannot be confident the people who "failed" were actually lying.
Twoblock
My most recent post in this thread that generated your response on the subject clearly states that the NAS did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. THEY DIDN'T.
Scientific Research is defined as the systematic observation of phenomena for the purpose of learning new facts or testing the application of theories to known facts. Reviewing someone else's work is at best secondary or desk research.
I wonder why you would choose to call the NAS report "RESEARCH" when there isn't a single sentence any where in their report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" that calls their activity Research. Could it be that as scientists they knew they were not conducting research, in the scientific sense, even if you don't?
In fact the authors of the report clearly Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph very clearly describes the task with which they were charged as follows;
QuoteThe Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was asked by the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a scientific review of the research (emphasis added) on polygraph examinations that pertain to their validity and reliability, particularly for personnel security screening, and to provide suggestions for further research,
If you are willing to refer to what they did as Secondary research (also known as desk research) defined as the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research; in future posts, I will be willing to refer to what they didn't do as Primary research ie experiments, investigations, or tests carried out to acquire primary data from, for example, research subjects or experiments.
This should end the semantic argument and allow us to move on.
Sancho Panza
Sergeant, You can't really quantify the false negatives in a particular group until they are identified as false negative. That is not just in polygraph, that applies to any testing procedure
You can't really make a prediction concerning how many will be false negatives unless you know where the cutoffs are. As I have said before, by moving the cut-off line for acceptance/rejection, pass/fail you change both the number of false positives and the number of false negatives in a screening exam. This does not change the error rate. By moving the cutoff to reduce false negatives you will increase false positive.
The following numbers and percentages have no correlation to real life testing but were chosen to simplify the math involved.
Theoretically if you look at our 50 applicants and assume that with the current cutoff score of x>70 is a pass and x<70 is a fail we have determine that we can expect 10 false positives and 10 false negatives.
Now as an organization we believe that false positives do no direct damage to our mission because they are never hired and we can live with rejecting 20% of our applicants because of the size and quality of our applicant pool, but false negatives must be reduced because they are killing our project.
We know mathematically that we can reduce our false negatives by moving the cutoff to x>85 =pass and x<85 =fail. The error rate doesn't change and is pretty much irrelevant. but by reducing our false negatives we have increased our false positives. Well the organization must decide if rejecting 15 false positives is worth insuring we have 5 fewer false negatives. If not, we have to move the cutoffs back where they were or change our protocol in a manner that reduces false positives but still protects us from false negatives.
From what I read in the employment manual on this site from DODPI it appears that this breakdown test is designed to do just that. Under their procedure anyone who fails the screening exam is given a more specific test or tests to verify the findings of the screening test and identify the question or questions that caused the deceptive results on the screening exam. I would presume that if someone passes the breakdown test, the logical assumption would be that the screening exam was a false positive. Much like the TB skin screening test, if it tests positive for TB, they don't start treating you for TB, they give you another more specific test. But oddly, I don't think the majority of employers do this regarding drug testing. If you test positive on their cheap, high error rate, pee in a cup, $4.00 drug test. They just don't hire you, but if you fail one after you are hired they will generally give you a more specific test before firing you.
As I said before it looks to me like this breakdown test process is an innovation designed to reduce false positives and if polygraph examiners aren't using it, they should start. Perhaps if this procedure had been in place during your pre-employment exams your outcome would have been different but this manual looks like it was published in 2002. I don't know when you took your tests. It does not appear that this protocol or manual was reviewed by NAS.
I think that it is a sign that polygraph is moving forward and if your tests were conducted before this procedure came into use, I don't think it would be fair to criticize not using it any more than we should criticize Civil War Surgeons for not knowing that washing their hands between amputations could save lives.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 29, 2008, 12:22 PMTwoblock
My most recent post in this thread that generated your response on the subject clearly states that the NAS did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. THEY DIDN'T.
Scientific Research is defined as the systematic observation of phenomena for the purpose of learning new facts or testing the application of theories to known facts. Reviewing someone else's work is at best secondary or desk research.
I wonder why you would choose to call the NAS report "RESEARCH" when there isn't a single sentence any where in their report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" that calls their activity Research. Could it be that as scientists they knew they were not conducting research, in the scientific sense, even if you don't?
In fact the authors of the report clearly Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph very clearly describes the task with which they were charged as follows;
QuoteThe Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was asked by the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a scientific review of the research (emphasis added) on polygraph examinations that pertain to their validity and reliability, particularly for personnel security screening, and to provide suggestions for further research,
If you are willing to refer to what they did as Secondary research (also known as desk research) defined as the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research; in future posts, I will be willing to refer to what they didn't do as Primary research ie experiments, investigations, or tests carried out to acquire primary data from, for example, research subjects or experiments.
This should end the semantic argument and allow us to move on.
Sancho Panza
Sancho, since the NAS review of the research convinced this distinguished and non-partisan group that polygraph screening is invalid, why are you beating this dead horse?
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 28, 2008, 07:00 PMThey reviewed 57 out of over 1000 Cullen
Hardly what I would call thorough.
Sancho Panza
PS you made a comment about Aldrich Ames the other day.
Did you know he didn't pass his polygraph?
sp
Sancho, I am not convinced your scrolling comment is correct. Do you have a link to a credible source support your assertion?
According to the Senate Comittee on Intelligence, Ames "passed" polygraph sessions in 1986 and 1992. Do you disagree with the committee's conclusion?
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm
Edited to remove duplicate information.
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 29, 2008, 09:59 AMAt least some of the NAS report (to the effect that polygraph is unreliable and unscientific) hopefully would have included the fact that examiners can exert a major influence on test outcomes.
You mean you haven't read it ?
An examiner can depress the Question Onset and answer keys several seconds before posing the CQ. Result: late response with low score.
The strongest stimulus in the test room is the examiner. The examiner can 'enhance' reactions to RQ's by deliberate inflections in his voice and accentuating specific words. Result: higher scores on RQ's
In cases where the examiner is trying hard to deliver a desired result, he may well skew the results by effecting the above behaviours.
To counteract a potentially corrupt examiner, the examinee should not sit in front of examiner facing sidewards, but should sit in-line with the examiner to his side, from where he can observe whether the examiner is attempting to manipulate the outcome.
It is because examiners can manipulate test results that they develop their 'power-over-all' attitudes and become aggressive when challenged.
Just because it is possible to maniplulate a test doesn't mean that it occurs. While I agree that corrupt examiners should be punished, I have never read any paper or manual on polygraph that would teach an examiner how to manipulate the results or claim that doing so would be moral, ethical or legal.
HOWEVER, Dr. Maschke wrote a book endorsing the idea the examinees should try to manipulate the results.
Likewise, every examiner that comes to this board to debate ultimately becomes aggressive and engages in ad-hominem (take note of spelling SP) attacks.
Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit. YOU accusing someone of aggressive or ad hominum argument. GIVE ME A BREAK
As to what you call attacks on your spelling, An abundance of spelling mistakes distracts too much from whatever point you might be trying to make and your points really can't stand the damage. Good grief the wordprocessor that comes bundled with windows has a spell checker USE IT
Its pretty much the same as giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
You seem to be making the assumption that if you give a teenager whiskey and the keys to a car he will begin to drive drunk. NOT IF HE IS TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG
very impressive Polytek
Sancho Panza
meangino
According the "Unclassified Abstract of the CIA Inspector General's Report on the Aldrich H Ames Case" and the 1994 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report "An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence", the traitor showed consistent deception in his 1986 polygraph regarding whether or not he had been asked to work for a foreign government and a 1993 review of this polygraph by the FBI also raised concerns as to deception dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material.
In his 1991 polygraph specific information regarding the traitors activities and financial transactions was withheld from the examiner, Deception was indicated, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals (the guys who were giving him the cash?) . After several hours of testing, he continued to show deception in response to the question. At a follow-up polygraph 4 days later he did in fact show no deception but the new examiner did note that his overall level of responsiveness was down considerably from the prior test. This might have been a red flag to many examiners.
If the investigators had given the examiner the financial information they had he might have asked a question like Have you received any funds directly or indirectly from a foreign national and thus shortened the CIA investigation considerably.
Isn't it interesting, that both of these investigative bodies that actually had access to ALL of the information and were looking to establish culpability for failure to locate and identify this traitor before he did serious damage; knowing that congress loves to put heads on the chopping block, (well at least anyone's head but their own) failed to conclude that the failure to catch this traitor was the fault of polygraph even though there were some criticisms of the CIA management, coordination, and polygraph review structures.
I'm convinced that the reason Ames wasn't caught sooner lies in our government's asinine refusal to share information with itself. Hey wait a minute. Didn't the World Trade Center attacks result from the same deficiency?
Sancho Panza
Maybe because they didn't review all of the research and your dead horse comment fails to acknowledge both the research they didn't review as well as the research conducted since they released their report.
The "horse" is far from dead.
QuoteMaybe because they didn't review all of the research and your dead horse comment fails to acknowledge both the research they didn't review as well as the research conducted since they released their report.
The polygraph studies that met our criteria for consideration do not generally reach the high levels of research quality desired in science. Only 57 of the 194 studies (30 percent) that we examined both met minimal standards of scientific adequacy and presented useful data for quantifying criterion validity. (p108)They reviewed what shoddy research was out there.
Stop whining because you don't like the results!
See those men in the white suits? The've come to take you someplace where you can rest for awhile. It's a very nice place where you can recuperate. There is a nice "day room" where you can relax and play cards. In fact, we have some guests you may know. There's Mr. Sackett, Mr. Coffey and a Mr. Hunter. They are looking for a "4th" for bridge. Now, won't you go and get some help? Some where to talk about all those wicked scientists and "traitors" you think are out to get you? ;)
Cullen This is from the APA Website
The American Polygraph Association (APA) recognizes the efforts of such a prestigious body as the National Academy of Sciences in the work performed in exploring questions associated with the detection of deception. We wish to note that the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project.
The APA proudly counts among its membership, well qualified and highly regarded academicians who routinely conduct and publish research in peer reviewed publications and who would have eagerly contributed to this project. Perhaps in a follow-up assessment, the NAS or a similar body will look to the largest international organization in the detection of deception field for answers to some of the important questions in such an inquiry. It is important that the public be aware that in their published report, the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing.
Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available. The NAS panel and the APA recognize that the field of lie detection is a difficult one to quantify or measure in terms of real world effectiveness. As the NAS so clearly reports, real world conditions are difficult if not impossible to replicate in a mock crime or laboratory environment for the purpose of assessing effectiveness. As a result, a paradigm for research into the validity and efficacy of lie detection has always been, at best, a difficult challenge.
We further agree that a lack of resources over the past decades has hampered more meaningful research, particularly in the security and applicant screening arena. It must be addressed; however, that the NAS report does not adequately recognize the many successes of polygraph in both the criminal specific arena and in National Security. Polygraph testing admittedly not perfect, has been and continues to be an extremely valuable tool. We firmly believe that continued scientific research will support our position; therefore, we welcome the NAS recommendation for additional research and greater innovation in the field.
We agree with the panel's conclusion that although there may be alternative techniques to polygraph testing, none of these alternatives outperform, nor do any of them yet show promise of supplanting the polygraph in the near term. We further agree with the NAS finding that expanding research efforts be directed at detecting and deterring major security threats, including efforts for improving techniques for security screening.
We believe polygraph testing now provides satisfactory detection and deterrence, enhanced research efforts; however, will certainly expand our capacity to improve efforts in those areas. The APA will continue to conduct and support research within its limited resources; however, we must look to other sources, perhaps including the Federal Government to allocate the resources needed to fully accomplish the specific research challenges offered by the NAS.
The APA stands ready and willing to work with such sources to bring the recommendations of the NAS to fruition.
end
]
]
Any person or group who believes or states that picking 57 studies out of 194 when there are over 1000 to choose from can be considered thorough or exhaustive lacks the collective brain power to dump water out of a bucket if the directions were printed on the bottom.
You do not know what was contained in the more than 800 studies they didn't look at and NEITHER DO THEY.
I may choose to leave this forum for awhile because I am busy or bored, but I assure you I will not ever be driven from the forum by the intellectual equivalent of the Lollypop Guild. It's time for your nap now If you're a good boy there might be jello later.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 29, 2008, 05:35 PMCullen This is from the APA Website
The American Polygraph Association (APA) recognizes the efforts of such a prestigious body as the National Academy of Sciences in the work performed in exploring questions associated with the detection of deception. We wish to note that the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project.
The APA proudly counts among its membership, well qualified and highly regarded academicians who routinely conduct and publish research in peer reviewed publications and who would have eagerly contributed to this project. Perhaps in a follow-up assessment, the NAS or a similar body will look to the largest international organization in the detection of deception field for answers to some of the important questions in such an inquiry. It is important that the public be aware that in their published report, the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing.
Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available. The NAS panel and the APA recognize that the field of lie detection is a difficult one to quantify or measure in terms of real world effectiveness. As the NAS so clearly reports, real world conditions are difficult if not impossible to replicate in a mock crime or laboratory environment for the purpose of assessing effectiveness. As a result, a paradigm for research into the validity and efficacy of lie detection has always been, at best, a difficult challenge.
We further agree that a lack of resources over the past decades has hampered more meaningful research, particularly in the security and applicant screening arena. It must be addressed; however, that the NAS report does not adequately recognize the many successes of polygraph in both the criminal specific arena and in National Security. Polygraph testing admittedly not perfect, has been and continues to be an extremely valuable tool. We firmly believe that continued scientific research will support our position; therefore, we welcome the NAS recommendation for additional research and greater innovation in the field.
We agree with the panel's conclusion that although there may be alternative techniques to polygraph testing, none of these alternatives outperform, nor do any of them yet show promise of supplanting the polygraph in the near term. We further agree with the NAS finding that expanding research efforts be directed at detecting and deterring major security threats, including efforts for improving techniques for security screening.
We believe polygraph testing now provides satisfactory detection and deterrence, enhanced research efforts; however, will certainly expand our capacity to improve efforts in those areas. The APA will continue to conduct and support research within its limited resources; however, we must look to other sources, perhaps including the Federal Government to allocate the resources needed to fully accomplish the specific research challenges offered by the NAS.
The APA stands ready and willing to work with such sources to bring the recommendations of the NAS to fruition.
end
]
]
Any person or group who believes or states that picking 57 studies out of 194 when there are over 1000 to choose from can be considered thorough or exhaustive lacks the collective brain power to dump water out of a bucket if the directions were printed on the bottom.
You do not know what was contained in the more than 800 studies they didn't look at and NEITHER DO THEY.
I may choose to leave this forum for awhile because I am busy or bored, but I assure you I will not ever be driven from the forum by the intellectual equivalent of the Lollypop Guild. It's time for your nap now If you're a good boy there might be jello later.
Sancho Panza
The APA!!! Yes, a totally unbiased organization that has no stake in polygraph testing. I completely believe anything they have to say.
What a joke!! This is like asking the mafia about the honesty of a wise guy!!
Yes I am sure Sancho that your leaving because your "busy" !! ;D ;D
This discussion thread has gotten far off topic, but I'd like to make two points:
1. Aldrich Ames beat the polygraph. Polygrapher claims that he "didn't really pass" are post hoc rationalizations. Retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan, who was a senior examiner at the Agency's polygraph division during the relevant time period, states unequivocally: "In 1986, almost a year after Ames began passing classified documents to the Soviets, he beat a polygraph test. In 1991, after spying for the Soviets for six years, Ames beat another test." (Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, p. 185)
2. The vast majority of the American Polygraph Association's ballyhooed "more than 1,000 research studies available" lack scientific rigor. The National Research Council's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph invited the public to submit relevant information and held a series of public hearings. The APA had every opportunity to present any documentation and commentary that it considered relevant, but evidently chose not to do so.
Dr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?
I see nothing in your CV (Isn't your PHD in Near Eastern Studies) that would indicate that you are qualified to assess the rigor of a scientific study.
The NAS didn't even LOOK at them.
If you aren't qualified and they didn't look, neither of you are in a position to comment authoritatively on their value or lack of value
Sancho Panza
Notguilty1 Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.
Sancho Panza
The APA's web site, on the "Polygraph Validity Research" page, reads:
QuoteThe American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations.
It seems that the APA believes using 57 research projects to study the validity of the polygraph is inadequate, but using 80 is not.
That hardly lends the APA any credibility, in my opinion. If they wanted to dismiss the NAS report as inadequate because it only used 57 research projects out of the "more than 1000 available" they should have used a significant percentage of the available research. Dismissing a research study that used 5.7% of the available research while endorsing a study that used 8% of the availabe research is laughable.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:18 AMDr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?
Sullivan's statement that Ames beat the polygraph is
not contradicted but rather
confirmed by the CIA Inspector General's report, the unclassified summary (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm) of which states regarding his 1986 polygraph:
Quote1986 Polygraph Examination:
At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.
Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.
Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."
Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.
According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.
The IG report also indicates that Ames also passed his 1991 polygraph:
Quote1991 Polygraph:
The derogatory information developed during Ames's background investigation also was not provided to the polygraph examiner before Ames's polygraph. The background investigation results were forwarded to the Office of Security on April 12, 1991, the same day that Ames was given his polygraph examination. According to polygraph officials, there was no requirement that background investigation information be made available to polygraphers prior to an examination.
The polygraph supervisor and the examiner were aware that there was some question about Ames's unexplained wealth, but neither recalls actually seeing the December 5, 1990 memorandum from the CIC or having the information in the memo specifically discussed with them. The polygraphers stated that they conducted a routine polygraph examination of Ames, and did not focus on financial questions other than those routinely asked of all employees during an update polygraph.
As is normal procedure, the polygrapher interviewed Ames prior to beginning the polygraph, and at that time Ames volunteered some information on his finances. He said he had money that came principally from his mother-in-law, that he owned property in Colombia, and that he had made several small, but lucrative, investments. Once the polygraph test began he was asked whether he was concealing any financial difficulties from the Agency. To this question Ames answered no, showing no signs of deception. According to CIA officials, the examiner did not ask questions during the polygraph test about the specific examples of Ames's unexplained affluence because they considered this a routine polygraph and were not advised to do any specialized questioning. CIC officials stated that they wanted Ames's polygraph to appear in every way to be routine so as not to tip Ames off to any specific concern in this area.
According to the CIA IG interviews of Ames, "Ames states that if the Agency had interviewed him about his spending in the context of a reinvestigation, he would not have been terribly alarmed. In fact, he prepared himself for the possibility that he would be asked about his finances. Ames attempted to account for the cash purchase of his Arlington home by having a gift letter prepared and notarized making it appear to have been a gift from his mother in law. He states that at some point someone would learn that he had purchased the house for cash and it was reasonable to expect that someone would ask him about the source of his wealth. But no one ever did."
Ames also showed no reaction when he was asked whether he was working for a foreign intelligence service. Deception was indicated, however, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, Ames continued to show deception in response to the question. The examiner, as was standard CIA practice, ended the test, called it incomplete, and asked Ames to return again in a few days to try to successfully complete the test.
Four days later Ames returned to finish the polygraph examination. On that day, with a different polygrapher, Ames answered all questions without any deceptive response, including the question regarding unreported contacts with a foreign national. The reaction that had occurred on the previous test was not present, according to the examiner. In fact, the examiner noted that Ames's overall level of responsiveness was down considerably from the prior test. No additional polygraph questions were asked about Ames's finances. The polygrapher concluded the test, dismissed Ames and wrote the polygraph report indicating Ames had passed the test. However, in file notes, the first examiner commented, "I don't think he is a spy, but I am not 100% convinced because of the money situation." CIA officials have recently stated that, in retrospect, the security background check on Ames should have preceded the polygraph and the polygraph examination should have been conducted after taking the results of the investigation into account.
Ames told the CIA IG investigators that he accepted his reinvestigation in 1991 as routine since he was aware that the five-year reinvestigation program "had taken hold." However, he had expected that the 1991 reinvestigation would be more direct and pointed than his 1986 test. Ames maintained that his passing the 1986 polygraph was very important to him because it gave him confidence and reduced his anxiety. Ames was still apprehensive, however, because he viewed the polygraph as "rolling the dice and so I felt that it was perfectly possible that even if I were telling the truth instead of lying I might have problems." Ames said he never received training from the KGB on how to beat the polygraph. He acknowledges, however, that the KGB advised him to "just relax, don't worry, you have nothing to fear."
In its review of the Ames polygraphs, the CIA IG report quotes several current and former polygraph examiners who stated that the Ames case should not be considered to be a polygraph "chart interpretation" problem. Rather, they say, the fundamental problem is that the 1986 and 1991 polygraph charts were invalid because the examiner in each case failed to establish a proper psychological atmosphere in the examination sessions. A former polygrapher noted that without proper preparation, a subject has no fear of detection and, without fear of detection, the subject will not necessarily demonstrate the proper physiological response. Consequently, they surmise, the Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.
The fact that Ames passed his 1991 polygraph caused the CIC investigative team to be less suspicious of him....
Clearly, Ames passed both his 1986 and 1991 CIA polygraph tests. You were mistaken when you stated he did not.
You also write:
QuoteI see nothing in your CV (Isn't your PHD in Near Eastern Studies) that would indicate that you are qualified to assess the rigor of a scientific study.
The NAS didn't even LOOK at them.
If you aren't qualified and they didn't look, neither of you are in a position to comment authoritatively on their value or lack of value
A good preliminary yardstick for assessing the rigor of a study is whether it passed the muster of peer review in a refereed scientific journal. The great majority of the American Polygraph Association's "more than 1,000 research studies available" don't meet this basic threshold.
quote author=7B59534E5B5963715D4F5F5457593C0 link=1219760564/45#49 date=1220113729]
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:18 AMDr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?
Sullivan's statement that Ames beat the polygraph is
not contradicted but rather
confirmed by the CIA Inspector General's report, the unclassified summary (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm) of which states regarding his 1986 polygraph:
Quote1986 Polygraph Examination:
At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.
Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.
Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."
Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.
According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.
The IG report also indicates that Ames also passed his 1991 polygraph:
Quote1991 Polygraph:
The derogatory information developed during Ames's background investigation also was not provided to the polygraph examiner before Ames's polygraph. The background investigation results were forwarded to the Office of Security on April 12, 1991, the same day that Ames was given his polygraph examination. According to polygraph officials, there was no requirement that background investigation information be made available to polygraphers prior to an examination.
The polygraph supervisor and the examiner were aware that there was some question about Ames's unexplained wealth, but neither recalls actually seeing the December 5, 1990 memorandum from the CIC or having the information in the memo specifically discussed with them. The polygraphers stated that they conducted a routine polygraph examination of Ames, and did not focus on financial questions other than those routinely asked of all employees during an update polygraph.
As is normal procedure, the polygrapher interviewed Ames prior to beginning the polygraph, and at that time Ames volunteered some information on his finances. He said he had money that came principally from his mother-in-law, that he owned property in Colombia, and that he had made several small, but lucrative, investments. Once the polygraph test began he was asked whether he was concealing any financial difficulties from the Agency. To this question Ames answered no, showing no signs of deception. According to CIA officials, the examiner did not ask questions during the polygraph test about the specific examples of Ames's unexplained affluence because they considered this a routine polygraph and were not advised to do any specialized questioning. CIC officials stated that they wanted Ames's polygraph to appear in every way to be routine so as not to tip Ames off to any specific concern in this area. {AMES WAS NOT HAVING ANY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, HE HAD PLENTY OF MONEY THE INVESTIGATORS KNEW THAT AND DIDN'T TELL THE EXAMINER}
According to the CIA IG interviews of Ames, "Ames states that if the Agency had interviewed him about his spending in the context of a reinvestigation, he would not have been terribly alarmed. In fact, he prepared himself for the possibility that he would be asked about his finances. Ames attempted to account for the cash purchase of his Arlington home by having a gift letter prepared and notarized making it appear to have been a gift from his mother in law. He states that at some point someone would learn that he had purchased the house for cash and it was reasonable to expect that someone would ask him about the source of his wealth. But no one ever did."
Ames also showed no reaction when he was asked whether he was working for a foreign intelligence service. Deception was indicated, however, when he was asked whether he was concealing contacts with foreign nationals. After several hours of testing, Ames continued to show deception in response to the question. The examiner, as was standard CIA practice, ended the test, called it incomplete, and asked Ames to return again in a few days to try to successfully complete the test.
Four days later Ames returned to finish the polygraph examination. On that day, with a different polygrapher, Ames answered all questions without any deceptive response, including the question regarding unreported contacts with a foreign national. The reaction that had occurred on the previous test was not present, according to the examiner. In fact, the examiner noted that Ames's overall level of responsiveness was down considerably from the prior test. No additional polygraph questions were asked about Ames's finances. The polygrapher concluded the test, dismissed Ames and wrote the polygraph report indicating Ames had passed the test. However, in file notes, the first examiner commented, "I don't think he is a spy, but I am not 100% convinced because of the money situation." CIA officials have recently stated that, in retrospect, the security background check on Ames should have preceded the polygraph and the polygraph examination should have been conducted after taking the results of the investigation into account.
Ames told the CIA IG investigators that he accepted his reinvestigation in 1991 as routine since he was aware that the five-year reinvestigation program "had taken hold." However, he had expected that the 1991 reinvestigation would be more direct and pointed than his 1986 test. Ames maintained that his passing the 1986 polygraph was very important to him because it gave him confidence and reduced his anxiety. Ames was still apprehensive, however, because he viewed the polygraph as "rolling the dice and so I felt that it was perfectly possible that even if I were telling the truth instead of lying I might have problems." Ames said he never received training from the KGB on how to beat the polygraph. He acknowledges, however, that the KGB advised him to "just relax, don't worry, you have nothing to fear."
In its review of the Ames polygraphs, the CIA IG report quotes several current and former polygraph examiners who stated that the Ames case should not be considered to be a polygraph "chart interpretation" problem. Rather, they say, the fundamental problem is that the 1986 and 1991 polygraph charts were invalid because the examiner in each case failed to establish a proper psychological atmosphere in the examination sessions. A former polygrapher noted that without proper preparation, a subject has no fear of detection and, without fear of detection, the subject will not necessarily demonstrate the proper physiological response. Consequently, they surmise, the Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.
The fact that Ames passed his 1991 polygraph caused the CIC investigative team to be less suspicious of him....
Clearly, Ames passed both his 1986 and 1991 CIA polygraph tests. You were mistaken when you stated he did not.
You also write:
QuoteI see nothing in your CV (Isn't your PHD in Near Eastern Studies) that would indicate that you are qualified to assess the rigor of a scientific study.
The NAS didn't even LOOK at them.
If you aren't qualified and they didn't look, neither of you are in a position to comment authoritatively on their value or lack of value
A good preliminary yardstick for assessing the rigor of a study is whether it passed the muster of peer review in a refereed scientific journal. The great majority of the American Polygraph Association's "more than 1,000 research studies available" don't meet this basic threshold.[/quote]
These finding may indicate that there was a problem with Polygraph Management, Polygraph Supervisors and even a Polygraph examiner who chose to believe AMES rather than what his charts were telling him, but I stand by my comments that he did not pass his polygraph, because the results of the test showed he was being deceptive and both of these investigative bodies that actually had access to ALL of the information and were looking to establish culpability for failure to locate and identify this traitor before he did serious damage; failed to conclude that the failure to catch this traitor was the fault of polygraph even though there were some criticisms of the CIA management, coordination, and polygraph review structures.
I'm convinced that the reason Ames wasn't caught sooner lies in our government's asinine refusal to share information with itself
This is a paragraph from DNA Technology in Forensic Science from Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, National Research Council
QuoteTesting methods and data need to be made available for public scrutiny. There has been a notable dearth of published research in forensic DNA testing by scientists unconnected to the companies that market the tests. In contrast with the research approach whereby new drugs and biomedical devices undergo controlled trials of safety and efficacy, forensic science has used more informal modes of evaluating new techniques. The process of peer review used to assess advances in biomedical science and technology should be used for forensic DNA technology. (Emphasis added)
There seems to be a some notable similarities here.
Sancho Panza
Sergeant Then I guess you must concede that while less than exhaustive it would be approximately 2.3% more thorough.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 04:26 PMSergeant Then I guess you must concede that while less than exhaustive it would be approximately 2.3% more thorough.
Sancho Panza
Actually, using 80 studies instead of 57 is roughly 1.4% "more thorough", not 2.3%.
And your lack of substantive answer is sufficient answer in and of itself. There is obviously no clear advantage in "thoroughness" or anything else when one uses 80 studies rather than 57 studies out of the more than one thousand that are available. It is a matter of degree, and, in this case, a very small degree.
I think it is clearly ridiculous for the APA to decry the NAS research study as inadequate because it "only" used 57 studies and for the same APA to then use a "whopping" 80 studies to bolster their own claims that the polygraph is highly accurate.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/19/fashion/20prof600.1a.jpg)
QuoteDr. Maschke You purport to be a scholar. Do you really endorse the claims made in a "for profit" book over the findings of the inspector generals report?
But you persistently ignore the FACTS Mr. Webb. What are the FACTS! This is the first step necessary to become a true scholar! Ascertain the FACTS. A step you apparently think doesn't apply to you. You even distort the facts. This makes you neither a scholar nor a gentleman. Good day Mr. Webb!
Well Sergeant I never claimed to be a mathematician but 57 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 5.7% and 80 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 8.0 %. But if 8.0 minus 5.7 doesn't equal 2.3 then my Wal-Mart calculator must be broken. But if it does then 5.7% plus 2.3% equals 8.0%
I tell you what if you have Microsoft excel open up a new worksheet and format column A as a percentage with one decimal place. Then format column B as a percentage with one decimal place. Then do column C the same way
in Cell A1 enter 8.0 and in B1 enter 5.7
Now in C-1 type the following =(A1-B1) and hit enter and you will get your answer without having to go through all that figuring out which buttons to push.
If you want to play math games 80 is actually 140% of the number 57.. Gotta remember slide that decimal 2 places with percentages. So if we're using your numbers APA used 140% of the studies used by NAS. But then I'm not a mathematician
APA has 80 studies available on their WEB Site. There is nothing there that said they only used 80 in their validity and reliability studies.
Sancho Panza
Mr. Cullen. It is very telling that you would select John Houseman an actor who knew nothing about law, to support your position, considering that you know nothing about polygraph and apparently very little about anything else.
In other words you are like a Frog at the bottom of a well, Your view of the sky is severely limited.
When you failed your polygraph, was it really for a job with the NSA or was it to keep your job that involved wearing a paper hat?
Sancho Panza
P.S. My name is not now, nor has it ever been Skip Webb and as far as I know, you are the only person who has ever called me that.
SP
Many here have alleged you are really Skip Webb, past president of the APA. You might as well be.
If you are Mr. Webb, can I ask, are you the past president of the APA with the "phoney" doctorate? Or was that somebody else?
TC
QuoteMany here have alleged you are really Skip Webb, past president of the APA.
If
they have alleged that, they certainly aren't doing it in open postings.
That's funny. Do you guys really send email back and forth to each other trying to figure out the identity posters on this board? Are you also trying to coordinate your responses? Don't make me laugh out-freaking-loud.
Mr. Cullen at the top of this page it says:
QuoteIf you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified
I infer from that statememnt that the administrator of this forum is inviting posters to remain anonymous.
Is it only liars, child molestors, terrorists, and thieves are invited to remain anonymous on this web site or is that extended to everyone?
My reasons for remaining anonymous are my own, and frankly they aren't any of your business.
It is unlikely that you would ever deduce my identity because of your assumptions about what I do.
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that someone who has taken a polygraph test and passed would defend it when you failed one and decided to attack it?
Instead you concoct this conspiracy theory that polygraph examiners are allied against you, waging some type of clandestine guerilla action against you.
When you tested for NSA, what was your paranoia scale on your psychological evaluation? Seriously there could be another reason you didn't get the job.
What are you doing for a living today? Custodial Maintenance? McJob? Sanitation Worker?
Rug Doctor?,La Crosse coach? Disgruntled Boy Scout working on his curmudgeon merit badge? Did I get close?
Never mind. It doesn't really matter
Sanch Panza
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:15 PMWell Sergeant I never claimed to be a mathematician but 57 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 5.7% and 80 studies out of a 1000 sure seems like 8.0 %. But if 8.0 minus 5.7 doesn't equal 2.3 then my Wal-Mart calculator must be broken. But if it does then 5.7% plus 2.3% equals 8.0%
I tell you what if you have Microsoft excel open up a new worksheet and format column A as a percentage with one decimal place. Then format column B as a percentage with one decimal place. Then do column C the same way
in Cell A1 enter 8.0 and in B1 enter 5.7
Now in C-1 type the following =(A1-B1) and hit enter and you will get your answer without having to go through all that figuring out which buttons to push.
If you want to play math games 80 is actually 140% of the number 57.. Gotta remember slide that decimal 2 places with percentages. So if we're using your numbers APA used 140% of the studies used by NAS. But then I'm not a mathematician
APA has 80 studies available on their WEB Site. There is nothing there that said they only used 80 in their validity and reliability studies.
Sancho Panza
You are absolutely right. I did not slide the decimal point. Mea culpa.
I think the APA would have a bit more credibility if, after denigrating the NAS for "only" using 57 studies out of the more than 1000 available, they had used a far greater percentage of those studies themselves in trying to establish the accuracy of the polygraph.
To imply that a research study which only used 57 of the more than 1000 studies availabe is somehow inadequate or biased and then to use only 80 themselves is ridiculous. I'm sure you can see that, though I'm equally as sure you will not admit to it.
Sergeant1107,
I'd be interested if SanchoPanza (or anyone else who shares his viewpoint) would be so kind as to provide citations and abstracts for, say, just five scientific articles that he believes were improperly excluded from consideration by the National Research Counsel's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:37 AMNotguilty1 Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza
Huh ?
Still trying to decipher the above..
Anyone else got a clue ?
Quote from: polytek on Sep 01, 2008, 11:20 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Aug 30, 2008, 10:37 AMNotguilty1 Choose to believe the APA if you want, OR Choose to believe the NAS findings. It doesn't really matter,but if you choose toi accept the NAS finding ACCEPT them read the whole thing get someone to explain it to you if you don't understand it and stop mis-interpreting their findings.Sancho Panza
Huh ?
Still trying to decipher the above..
Anyone else got a clue ?
I can explain. Watch any shell game operator and you'll understand, cleaver yes, but informed educated people can see past the scam.
In addition to many other things that he is, SanchoPanza is a hypocrite. He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph but SanchoPanza knows that (1) one is supposed to lie on the polygraph; (2) Former APA President Skip Webb said that a person who refused to lie would be considered to be refusing the polygraph; and, most importantly, (3) most of the instructions that Polygraphers give to subjects are deliberate lies.
So, lying is good when SanchoPanza and Co. do it, but bad when others do it. This is hypocrisy and special pleading. Could we expect anything else?
BTW, I'm glad to see that some polygraphers are joining us again here! I thought I'd scarred all of you off.
David Neiwert (http://firedoglake.com/author/18/), managing editor of the left-leaning blog, FireDogLake.com (http://www.firedoglake.com), writes that the FBI wanted more serious charges filed against the alleged Obama assassination plotters. See
FBI Wanted Obama Plotters Charged, But A Rove Appointee Said No (http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/03/fbi-wanted-obama-plotters-charged-but-a-rove-appointee-said-no/).
Lethe Wrote
QuoteSanchoPanza is a hypocrite. He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph
Lethe, Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up.
Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization.
But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: polytek on Sep 05, 2008, 04:44 PMLethe Wrote
QuoteSanchoPanza is a hypocrite. He criticizes George for telling people how to lie on the polygraph
Lethe, Until you catch me in a lie, or catch me telling someone it is OK to lie, or quote from a book where I repeatedly tell the reader it is OK lie as well as offer advice on how to tell lies, or find some other material basis for your portentous claim concerning my hypocrisy, you should really just shut up.
Your application of the word hypocrite pertaining to me is a deliberate ad hominum attack as well as a mischaracterization.
But I'm not surprised at all. Many people, like yourself, who perpetuate wrongdoing, endorse and encourage amoral behavior, seem to always resort to the "everybody else does it" justification.
But thank you for finally admitting that George (Dr. Maschke) tells people how to lie.
Dr. Maschke is still in denial regarding that fact.
Sancho Panza
Hey Sancho Panza welcome back! Was wondering where you've been.
Let me ask. So it is your opinion that it is OK for Poligraphers to lie like telling people that Polygraph is 98% accurate when they know that it is a lie?
Notguilty1
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: polytek on Sep 05, 2008, 08:41 PMNotguilty1
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
By the way Sgt. Nazario was found innocent. That makes him just one MORE guy with more proof that his polygraph was accurate than you have that yours was an error.
Sancho Panza
Sancho,
I will pass on responding in like to your personal assaults.
The only reason that my claim is "unsupported" in my persoanl case, is because Poligraphers like mine a former police officer mind you, tells his lies behind close doors and "off the record" but I am not the only one reporting that this claim has been made. There is ample public claims by the Polygraph industry that these are the accuracy rates.
Besides I have all the "proof" I need.
I took the test, told the truth and failed. I was told that the machine is 95-98% accurate and it detects deception.
THESE ARE ALL LIES!! If they are not, I would love to have you direct me to the proven scientific literature that substantiates the accuracy claims and the claim that Polygraph detects deception.
THERE ARE NONE!
Quote from: polytek on Sep 05, 2008, 08:41 PMNotguilty1
Your question is actually a poorly disguised statement that presumes unsupportable generalizations' such as #1 polygraphers lie and #2 there are not any research studies that support a claim of 98% accuracy.
You cannot support either of those generalizations because, as generalizations, they fail if there is a single truthful polygrapher or a single study that supports 98% accuracy. Frankly, you lack the motivation to do the reading involved to support your claims. You don't seem to be very clever either.
Get real! Polygraph "testing" is
fundamentally dependent upon the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested" (and the naivety and gullibility of the latter). It's no stretch to say that polygraphers lie. As Dr. Richardson pointed out in an earlier thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1214#msg1214):
Quote...Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
The deceptions involved in polygraph "testing" are also outlined, using primary source materials, in Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).The polygraph community's claim that polygraphy has a 98% (or thereabouts) accuracy rate doesn't pass the giggle test. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) to begin with. Not surprisingly, it hasn't been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably operate at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. On the contrary as Dr. Alan Zelicoff has shown (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf), the polygraph community's best field studies suggest that under field conditions, a truthful person has roughly a 50-50 chance of failing a polygraph.
QuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would include
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
I see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.
You're trying to make me laugh aren't you?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: polytek on Sep 06, 2008, 08:05 AMQuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would include
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
Sancho Panza,
You're being argumentative. That polygraphic lie detection tests involve examiner deception is a well-documented fact -- a fact documented by the polygraph literature itself (which again is explained at length in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector). Your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact betrays a lack of intellectual honesty.
Do you disagree? If so, please explain how to administer a probable-lie control question test (CQT) without lying to or otherwise deceiving the examinee.
QuoteI see that Dr. Zellicoff is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, and a physicist. This makes him only slightly more qualified to discuss polygraph and statistical analysis that you are. His marginally researched monograph cites YOU as an authority on polygraph.
Dr. Zelicoff is well qualified to discuss the statistical analysis he presents in his paper, "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies." (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf) If you have any substantive disagreement with his conclusions, please feel free to explain.
QuoteYou're trying to make me laugh aren't you?
No. I'm trying to make you think.
Why should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?
Quote"Deceptions for the average examiner would include..."
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
Also, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?
Do you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: polytek on Sep 06, 2008, 10:10 AMWhy should I address any of your questions when you choose to ignore mine?
Quote"Deceptions for the average examiner would include..."
It is very clear that Dr. Richardson's choice of the word "would" is a statement of possibility.
If it were probable why didn't he say so?
If he believed that all polygraphers lie, why didn't he say so?
If he I and other scientists believed that there is a role for the use of polygraph to support criminal investigations, why didn't he say so? OH WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID SAY THAT. Didn't he?
Sancho Panza,
I cannot presume to speak for Dr. Richardson, but I think it's reasonably clear from the context of his remarks that the examiner deceptions associated with polygraphic lie tests that he enumerates are commonplace.
To the extent that Dr. Richardson may agree that there is a legitimate role for the use of polygraphs in criminal investigations, I think you'd find such a role constrained to concealed information tests, although based on past discussions I think that he'd agree -- as I do -- that admissions/confessions obtained in the course of traditional lie "tests" (such as the CQT or I&R techniques) may have probative value to the extent that they can be independently corroborated.
QuoteAlso, has Dr. Zelicoff's monograph ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal or did he write it just for his web site and yours?
No. And to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Zelicoff has not submitted this article to any journal for publication, either. However, he
has had his statistical analysis reviewed by a well qualified statistician. Again, if you have any substantive disagreement with his analysis, please feel free to explain.
QuoteDo you deny that if Nazario had been convicted you would have used that conviction to support your contention that polygraph doesn't work?
That polygraph testing doesn't work is already about as well established as it could possibly be. There's no raging debate amongst scientists. The only ones claiming 90+ percentile accuracy rates for polygraphy are those with vested interests in this pseudoscience.
For more on the alleged plot to assassinate U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, see RawStory.com reporter Brad Jacobson's article, "Legal experts question US Attorney's decision not to prosecute Obama 'assassination plot'." The matter of the polygraph "tests" administered to Nathan Johnson and Shawn Adolf is not, however, mentioned:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_experts_question_Colorado_US_Attorneys_1031.html