Here is a link to the APA's site and what they say about polygraph, doctors, not some examiner with less training than a barber.
Glad I'm in good company with my "opinion" of polygraph!
http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html
May I predict a response from the pro-polygraph crowd?
Probably something along the lines of: "The only people qualified to form an opinion regarding the accuracy of the polygraph are polygraph examiners, since they are the only ones with sufficient training in the polygraph."
If the National Academy of Sciences' opinion can be discounted I doubt any pro-polygraph people will listen attentively to a psychologist.
Actually it wouldn't be necessary for them to be an examiner to form an opinion, but the research literature review used to form the opinion linked above is pretty thin by anyone's standards. Of the five references at the end of the article only three are actually cited in the article, two of which had a common author and only one of which was used in the NAS study. It seems like the names of Lykken and the NAS were added to lend name recognition to the article.
The author didn't even put his name on it. No indication that he even read any part of Lykken's book or the NAS study; much less anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that even Notguilty1 has read more of the NAS study than the author of this article.
Regarding it being what "they" say about polygraph there is nothing in this article to indicate that it in any way represents the position of the American Psychological Association. As to whether or not the author is a Doctor, since there is no attribution from the author one really can't tell whether the author has a Phd or 2 years short of high school diploma, which also fits the requirements for a level of membership in the organization.
So as long as people who don't know what they are talking about refrain from giving the article more credit than it really deserves. I don't think Polygraphers will have too much more to say about it than I did.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 14, 2008, 06:20 PMActually it wouldn't be necessary for them to be an examiner to form an opinion, but the research literature review used to form the opinion linked above is pretty thin by anyone's standards. Of the five references at the end of the article only three are actually cited in the article, two of which had a common author and only one of which was used in the NAS study. It seems like the names of Lykken and the NAS were added to lend name recognition to the article.
The author didn't even put his name on it. No indication that he even read any part of Lykken's book or the NAS study; much less anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that even Notguilty1 has read more of the NAS study than the author of this article.
Regarding it being what "they" say about polygraph there is nothing in this article to indicate that it in any way represents the position of the American Psychological Association. As to whether or not the author is a Doctor, since there is no attribution from the author one really can't tell whether the author has a Phd or 2 years short of high school diploma, which also fits the requirements for a level of membership in the organization.
So as long as people who don't know what they are talking about refrain from giving the article more credit than it really deserves. I don't think Polygraphers will have too much more to say about it than I did.
Sancho Panza
As usual you fail to READ!
The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.
Now, I can say that there is a coffee pot that circles the earth that know that you are lying. It cannot be seen or proven not to be there.
The only validity to my "test" is that I have convinced enough people that many times I get a confession.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COFFE POT IS THERE!!
Your self serving slant on everything is so evident.
What is so thin about ?
"There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious."
Seems clear to me and many others that have been victims of your scam not to mention respected people in law, medicine and government.
You are both missing the point.
The whole point of a polygraph is to EXTRACT information, admissions...etc. So it is really doesn't matter if the machine detects deception. As with any other interrogation technique, the only thing that matters is if the examiner is able to get the examinee to talk.
Most people know that a magician's trick is not really "magic". The whole point is if the magician is able to get the audience to fall for the "illusion", and get an ovation.
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on Oct 14, 2008, 09:52 PMYou are both missing the point.
The whole point of a polygraph is to EXTRACT information, admissions...etc. So it is really doesn't matter if the machine detects deception. As with any other interrogation technique, the only thing that matters is if the examiner is able to get the examinee to talk.
TC
As much as I would like to see the EPPA amended, I have always been less than optimistic that this will happen. Twenty years ago, polygraphy was outlawed for use on a majority of the general public. There are so few people left subject to it that this issue is not likely to generate much traction among elected officials.
I think the way we will ultimately be successful in the destruction of polygraphy is through exposing the trickery behind this pseudoscientific fraud, destroying its value in extracting confessions.
As you pointed out, the only real utility of polygraphy is that it is very effective in making those ignorant of the procedure volunteer information that they would otherwise conceal.
With AntiPolygraph.org occupying the #1 spot with Google searches for polygraph for a vast majority of the past five years, I think that it's fair to speculate that our message on polygraphy is being delivered.
Moreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS.
Whether they refuse to submit to the "test," pass (with CM or without) or fail, the best way anyone faced with a polygraph can hasten the destruction of this fraud is to deny the process its primary utility by not volunteering any information.
The ability to extract admissions comprises two of the three legs in that table under the polygraph house of cards. Once removed, the cards will come crashing to the floor, as the poor track record of polygraphy with regard to detect deception will leave it unlikely to persevere with this as its only purported benefit.
QuoteWith AntiPolygraph.org occupying the #1 spot with Google searches for polygraph for a vast majority of the past five years, I think that it's fair to speculate that our message on polygraphy is being delivered.
Moreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS.
The key is going to be getting the MEDIA to understand the truth about the polygraph. The majority of people coming to this board are either going to take the test, might be taking the test, or know someone in that boat. The general public, however, will remain ignorant unless the media (including shows targeted toward the lowest common denominator of viewer) picks up on it.
Prior to the internet, getting the truth out about the polygraph meant writing a book, or producing word-of-mouth. The information revolution has been a real boon!
Hopefully, the truth will become widespread, and our names cleared prior to our departure from this earthly existence. And our national security no longer jeopardized, I might add!
TC
Sancho Panza, who has recently lied (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4083.msg31231#msg31231) to us about the existence of published studies on polygraph countermeasure detection, now complains that the American Psychological Association's article on lie detectors lacks "anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article."
But in point of fact, the article is not unbalanced. The authors of all of the sources referenced are scientists at arm's length from polygraphy. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy is to psychology as intelligent design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) is to biology. Sancho Panza might as well bemoan the fact that an article on evolutionary biology fails to include an opposing point of view from a clergyman.
Dr. George Maschke, endorses lying whenever it suits his purpose and has even been caught by one government agency lying about his contacts with foreign intelligence services as well as unauthorized release of classified information. He was subsequently caught by another government agency attempting to cheat on a polygraph by using countermeasures.
Dr. Maschke, of course, maintains his innocence but, paradoxically, he also endorses lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.
He recently decided to label me a liar because I refused to do countermeasure research for Dr. Maschke by directing him to studies that show that not only are countermeasures detectable; honest people who attempt countermeasures increase the probability of producing deceptive reactions during polygraph examinations.
This occurred after I challenged him to produce a single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are undetectable and (b) cited his book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for undetectable countermeasures. As of this date he has failed to produce any such study.
Sancho Panza
S.P.
You write in part:
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 06:55 AM...Dr. George Maschke, endorses lying whenever it suits his purpose and has even been caught by one government agency lying about his contacts with foreign intelligence services as well asunauthorized release of classified information.He was subsequently caught by another government agency attempting to cheat on apolygraph by using countermeasures....
Have you completely lost your mind? Are you really defining "caught" as being found deceptive on a polygraph examination? Unless you have independent corroborative evidence related to your aforementioned assertions, you are not only without reason, but a slandering fool. Only a fool would suggest to the hundreds of victims of false positive polygraph results who view this site that a deceptive result on a polygraph exam is equivalent to being caught. Yes, get real already!
Quote from: 727C7B7A150 on Oct 14, 2008, 11:06 PMMoreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS
Mr. Scalabrini
You are free to assume whatever you wish, but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 06:55 AMDr. George Maschke, endorses lying whenever it suits his purpose and has even been caught by one government agency lying about his contacts with foreign intelligence services as well as unauthorized release of classified information. He was subsequently caught by another government agency attempting to cheat on a polygraph by using countermeasures.
This is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph." (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml)
QuoteDr. Maschke, of course, maintains his innocence but, paradoxically, he also endorses lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.
I have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.
QuoteHe recently decided to label me a liar because I refused to do countermeasure research for Dr. Maschke by directing him to studies that show that not only are countermeasures detectable; honest people who attempt countermeasures increase the probability of producing deceptive reactions during polygraph examinations.
No. I've labeled you a liar because you
lied about the existence of "published studies as late as 2007 that countermeasures are detectable..."
No such studies have been published.QuoteThis occurred after I challenged him to produce a single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are undetectable and (b) cited his book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for undetectable countermeasures. As of this date he has failed to produce any such study.
As I pointed out earlier:
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 11, 2008, 05:35 PMThat polygraph operators cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is supported by peer-reviewed research cited, with full abstracts, therein. Skeptical readers are welcome (and encouraged) to examine that evidence and draw their own conclusions.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 15, 2008, 08:52 AMI have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.
Dr Maschke
A true statement, as far as it goes, but you certainly do endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations. And, although you always deny responsibility, if you were completely truthful, you would admit that the information, which is, after all, called how to beat a polygraph (not how to pass if truthful) is used more often by liars than by truthfuls.
Quote from: pailryder on Oct 15, 2008, 09:39 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 15, 2008, 08:52 AMI have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.
Dr Maschke
A true statement, as far as it goes, but you certainly do endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.
I certainly endorse the use of polygraph countermeasures by truthful persons to protect themselves against the all-too-serious risk of a false positive outcome. And I'm in good company. As the late Professor David T. Lykken observed:
Quote...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT administered under adversarial circumstances, and those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette. (A Tremor in The Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998, p. 277)
You continue:
QuoteAnd, although you always deny responsibility, if you were completely truthful, you would admit that the information, which is, after all, called how to beat a polygraph (not how to pass if truthful) is used more often by liars than by truthfuls.
Not so. The truth of the matter is that I do not know whether the information provided here on AntiPolygraph.org is used more often by liars or by truthful persons.
Pailryder,
You write in part:
Quote from: pailryder on Oct 15, 2008, 08:43 AM...but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions....
You didn't know 20 years ago what percentage of crimes were confessed to following a polygraph examination; you likewise do not know any more about that statistic with today's crimes and polygraph-related confessions.
By definition my assertion is true with unsolved crimes. I believe it to be particularly true with the fishing expedition we know as polygraph screening for which ground truth is frequently never established.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 15, 2008, 08:52 AMThis is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."
SLANDER????
There is easily as much or more evidence that you were caught lying and cheating than you are able to produce that you were truthful and not cheating. Like I have said before the only evidence you have to support your contention that you "wrongly failed" and were "falsely accused of cheating "is the word of a man who
endorses lying and cheating. Do I really have to post all of those quotes again that prove you endorse lying and cheating? If you believed you had a slander action you could have pursued them against S A Jack Trimarco and Ervin Youngblood
Any wet behind the ears attorney could demolish your credibility on the witness stand without breaking a sweat based on your own written words.
Your argument is getting weaker and weaker. The other day you were claiming that you
Quotehave never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination
. I explained to you the difference between relevant questions and relevant issues. Now that you understand the difference you de facto acknowledge that you do in fact encourage people to lie to relevant issues by now very carefully stating that you have never encouraged anyone lie to "Relevant Questions". This allows you to continue to endorse lying to relevant issues and still maintain some semblance of denial.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 11:54 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 15, 2008, 08:52 AMThis is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."
SLANDER????
Yes, slander (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander). In the sense of "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."
QuoteThere is easily as much or more evidence that you were caught lying and cheating than you are able to produce that you were truthful and not cheating....
It's impossible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that I'm not a spy. But neither can you. Neither can anyone. I cannot prove that I did not use countermeasures (even though I didn't know what they even were when I was accused of using them). But neither can any polygraph examinee.
Polygraphy is notoriously unreliable and false positives are common. So on the basis of precisely what evidence do you now publicly assert that I was "caught lying and cheating?"
QuoteIf you believed you had a slander action you could have pursued them against S A Jack Trimarco and Ervin Youngblood.
While Messrs. Trimarco and Youngblood both reached conclusions that were completely wrong, unlike you, they did not publicly accuse me of anything.
QuoteYour argument is getting weaker and weaker. The other day you were claiming that you Quotehave never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination
. I explained to you the difference between relevant questions and relevant issues. Now that you understand the difference you de facto acknowledge that you do in fact encourage people to lie to relevant issues by now very carefully stating that you have never encouraged anyone lie to "Relevant Questions". This allows you to continue to endorse lying to relevant issues and still maintain some semblance of denial.
Relevant questions are about relevant issues. I've never advised anyone to lie with regard to either.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 15, 2008, 01:01 PMYes, slander. In the sense of "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."
Malicious.? I for one would have never known that you were busted by S A Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood if you hadn't decided to disclose it to the world. I don't really understand how you could support a claim that anyone who repeats information that you disclosed to the world is acting maliciously.
False?? Well, you just admitted that you couldn't prove that it was false. I just choose to believe an FBI Special Agent and a Police Employee before I believe you. Neither of these men to my knowledge have ever failed a Polygraph, been accused of cheating on a polygraph, or co-written a book and published a web site which encourages lying and cheating and attempts to instruct people on techniques to allow them to pass a polygraph while lying. Both of these men had long term careers working for agencies where their credibility was subject to constant attack. You barely got started before you were determined to be unsuitable by the people tasked with making those decisions.
Defamatory ?? Dr. Maschke the foundation for whatever fame or infamy you might enjoy stems from the opinions of S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood. You should write them a thank you note and praise anyone who furthers your legend by repeating their opinions. You disclosed this information for the purpose of adding credence to your claims of poor treatment and to increase your name association with your cause. You can't really call the information
you use to make yourself famous as defamatory. Well,
you could, but most people would think it was a silly contention.
The final element of a slander in the legal sense is damage. Perfecting a damage claim regarding something you disclosed about yourself and occurring on a bulletin board where you control access would be somewhat problematic.
You accused the FBI of somehow revealing the results of your Polygraph to Mr. Youngblood which led him and his supervisor to accuse you of countermeasures. Like I said, if you had been slandered, you should have pursued it there.
You have repeatedly called me a liar yet you have absolutely no supporting information from anyone that I have ever lied to you. All I did was refuse to answer your question about where you could find a research paper.
You repeatedly side step the truth of the statement that there have been no scientific studies published or otherwise that both state that the countermeasures you endorse are undetectable AND use your book TLBTLD as a cited source for the procedures or techniques for producing undetectable countermeasures. You return to a quote from your book that does not answer the question. You try to use careful semantics to try to pretend that you don't encourage people to lie to relevant issues on polygraph examinations even though you know that all the questions on the test are relevant to the testing process. Even the ones that are not labeled "Relevant Questions" are
by definition, relevant.
RELEVANTMain Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-vənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up — more at relieve
Date: 1560
1 a:
having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b: affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c: having social relevance
2: proportional , relative
relevant. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant
Sancho Panza
S.P.,
The meaningless gibberish in your last post is truly amazing, e.g.,
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 03:15 PMthat you were busted by S A Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood
What kind of yo-yo Dragnet lingo is this? Dr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams, nothing more, and nothing less. He was not caught; he was not busted.
If you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination), you would have given an accurate report (no slander) and even be in agreement with the self-report of Dr. Maschke. It is when you cross over into nonsensical characterizations that you slander.
Yeah--you know it's coming--get real already!
Anonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity. But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.
TC
getrealalready
I can speak only of the confession rate following polygraph examinations that I have personally conducted. I have not observed any significant change in that rate since the launch of this site.
Pailryder,
The only thing that you can take note of and report (now and twenty years ago) is the number of confessions obtained per number of polygraph examinations administered. This is not the same thing as the considerably more meaningful number of confessions obtained per guilty subjects examined. You don't have ground truth for the latter. You no doubt have confirmation of the true status of only a small subset of the number of guilty subjects that you examined during a given period of time.
QuoteI can speak only of the confession rate following polygraph examinations that I have personally conducted. I have not observed any significant change in that rate since the launch of this site.
I wouldn't doubt that, given that most people come here looking for answers only AFTER being polygraphed. They bought the popular myth that the polygraph is accurate, therefore are looking for an explanation of why they could have possibly failed having told the truth.
That won't change until the popular media picks up on the truth. Popular culture is is always slow to change. It takes at least a generation of two for popular beliefs to change. In the meantime, open minded people can come here and get the real facts about the polygraph, whilst the masses get their info from Dr. Phil and Maury Povich.
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on Oct 15, 2008, 05:05 PMAnonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.
Mr. Cullen,
First, Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.
Second, Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.
Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.
Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.
Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMDr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMIf you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination),you would have given an accurate report
I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 06:40 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 15, 2008, 05:05 PMAnonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.
Mr. Cullen,
First, Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.
Second, Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.
Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.
Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.
Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMDr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMIf you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination),you would have given an accurate report
I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.
Sancho Panza
Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You crack me up Sancho!
Every day I look forward to reading what stupid statements you'll come up with and in true form you outdo yourself every day ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 11:16 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So.... In general if someone is not on your side they are fools.... just checking ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 11:30 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 11:16 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 15, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Oct 15, 2008, 07:04 PMOf course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.
Sancho Panza
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So, hmmmm, In general, if someone is not on your side they are fools regardless of their personal or professional experiences or knowledge.... just checking ;D ;D ;D ;D
S.P.
I stand completely behind that which I wrote and which you in part referred to (partially quoted):
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 04:19 PMIf you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination), you would have given an accurate report (no slander) and even be in agreement with the self-report of Dr. Maschke.It is when you cross over into nonsensical characterizations that you slander.
Again, If you had merely reported that Dr. Maschke had been found deceptive on more than one polygraph, you would have agreed with his considerably earlier self-report on the matter. You did not. You engaged in childish slander.
I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters. Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.
Quote from: pailryder on Oct 15, 2008, 08:43 AMMr. Scalabrini
You are free to assume whatever you wish, but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions.
Unless you know beforehand if every single person you polygraph is guilty of the crime of which they are accused, how can you tell what percentage of people make truthful confessions?
Twenty years ago what percentage of guilty people confessed? What percentage of guilty people did not confess? What are the percentages today?
How do you know that the last hundred people you "passed" weren't lying about every relevant issue on their exam? How do you know if a random group of a hundred test subjects from twenty years ago that also "passed" their polygraphs were not lying in response to the relevant questions?
I'm sure that twenty years ago the polygraph was a useful device in obtaining confessions, just as it is today. If that is what you meant I can certainly understand and agree with you. But I don't see how you could make any comparisons more detailed than that.
Notguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?
I suspect the real answer is both.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 15, 2008, 11:43 PMI suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters.Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.
Getrealalready.
If Dr. Maschke, when he wrote his story, would have merely reported examination results and not related them to his actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters, then this discussion would be moot.
In Dr. Maschke's self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" He characterizes the results of those examinations in the light most favorable to his position. He both claims that he told the truth and denies using countermeasures. However, if you think about it, there just might be differing opinions as to why he failed one exam and was accused of cheating on the other.
Special Agent Trimarco was obviously of the opinion that DR. Maschke Lied on his exam regarding contact with foreign nationals and releasing classified information. It is a reasonable conclusion that Special Agent Trimarco believes that he CAUGHT Dr. Mashke lying on his test. Would we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.
Mr. Youngblood was obviously of the opinion that Dr. Maschke attempted countermeasures on that examination and apparently had it confirmed by his supervisor. It is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Youngblood believes he CAUGHT Dr. Maschke trying to cheat on his exam.
At the very least there are at least three trained professionals who were present during Dr. Maschke's exams who, after careful evaluation of the circumstances and data, disagree with Dr. Maschke's characterization of the findings. There is, at the very least, as much reason, proof, evidence, (whatever you choose to call it) to believe their findings as there is to believe Dr. Maschke. It is no more slanderous of Dr. Maschke to proclaim his guilt than it is slanderous of Special Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood to proclaim his innocence. His story charges the federal government with collusion to deny him a security clearance by getting Mr. Youngblood to accuse him of countermeasures.
If our government somehow decided that they didn't trust Dr. Mashcke for any reason from suspicion of selling classified information to using the wrong fork at dinner, they could have simply revoked his security clearance or chosen not to renew it then classified their reason at a high level for "national security " and he would never know the why. If they were "out to get him" they wouldn't need a polygraph or collusion to get it done.
Your statement "Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity." is a statement of opinion, No matter how many people might share your opinion, that is all that it is, an opinion.
Sancho Panza
QuoteWould we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.
If polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?
Quote from: 727C7B7A150 on Oct 16, 2008, 01:00 PMIf polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?
Maybe, because they believe polygraphy
is as reliable as its proponents proclaim. Why would they feel the need to launch an investigation ? Dr. Maschke has been successfully denied access to information the U.S. Government has determined to their satisfaction he is not sufficiently trustworthy to possess. In goverment circles, I think they call that "Mission Accomplished".
According to S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood Dr. Maschke was "caught" lying on a polygraph examination and attempting countermeasures, neither of which have a criminal penalty involving prison in the context of a security clearance screening examination.
Sancho Panza
QuoteIf polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?
When I failed my polygraph, the NSA reported me to the FBI, but they found no substance to NSA security's claims. The Special Agent actually apologized. This was the Honolulu office, in April 2002. I did a FOIA recently and there was nothing on me in their records. Polygraph high drama at it's best.
If I remember correctly, trimarco claimed GW to be a spy and drug runner. Either they chose NOT to do a follow up, or did one, and found nothing.
TC
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 16, 2008, 11:17 AMNotguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?
I suspect the real answer is both.
Sancho Panza
Nope.... just took me 3 shots cause I couldn't stop laughing at you
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D