You Anti-Poly People........

[Eastwood]

.......remind me a lot of the defense attorney who knows his client is guilty, yet defends him anyway.  How so, you say?  Don't you have the least degree of concern that you are teaching poly CM's to those who would like to infiltrate the USG to do us harm?

[George W. Maschke]

Larry Wu-tai Chin, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Aldrich Hazen Ames, and Ana Belen Montes all beat the polygraph and infiltrated the U.S. Government without any help from AntiPolygraph.org. And Al-Qaeda has also studied polygraph countermeasures and taught its membership that the polygraph is a sham--again without any help from AntiPolygraph.org.

And the National Academy of Sciences found that polygraph screening has never caught a single spy. Former CIA counterintelligence boss Ed Curran couldn't think of a single spy caught by polygraph screening either, when asked about it by CBS 60 Minutes II.

It is entirely possible that a double agent could beat the polygraph and infiltrate the U.S. Government using the specific countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which has been downloaded around the world. But if AntiPolygraph.org were to withdraw this information, it would still be available to would-be double agents.

Far from undermining national security, I think this website is helping to improve it by exposing polygraph screening for the massive fraud that it is, and hastening the day that it is abolished.

[Eastwood]

You conveniently sidestepped the question as usual.  Cut the BS that the "poly has never caught a spy" crap.  Too many people who know nothing about polygraph have made this ridiculous statement.  
Let's suppose one of Al-Qaida reads this crap and uses it to pass his test.  He then gets unfettered access to USG offices and kills Americans.  I'd love to hear your excuses then.  But I'm sure you will have them all lined up won't you George?

[George W. Maschke]

I did not mean to side-step your question. To answer directly, no -- I am not concerned that I am "teaching poly CM's [sic] to those who would like to infiltrate the USG to do us harm." As I noted above, it's obvious that double agents have known how to beat the polygraph since well before AntiPolygraph.org went on-line on 18 September 2000.

You write:

Cut the BS that the "poly has never caught a spy" crap.  Too many people who know nothing about polygraph have made this ridiculous statement.

Why don't you enlighten us then? The National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel was briefed by the CIA polygraph unit, and panel member Katherine Laskey reported that polygraph screening never caught a spy. Does the NAS "know nothing about polygraph?" Ed Curran presided over a polygraph jihad at CIA following Ames' arrest. He couldn't think of a single spy that had been caught by polygraph screening. Does he "know nothing about polygraph?"

Let's suppose one of Al-Qaida reads this crap and uses it to pass his test.

If you truly belive that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is "crap," then why are you concerned that a member of Al-Qaeda might read it and use the information contained therein to pass a polygraph examination?

He then gets unfettered access to USG offices and kills Americans.  I'd love to hear your excuses then.  But I'm sure you will have them all lined up won't you George?

No excuses are necessary on our part. We are speaking the truth plainly here, and will continue to sound the alarm until the pseudoscientific fraud of CQT polygraphy is abolished. Those who will have some explaining to do, when and if the scenario you propose unfolds, are the corrupt and/or incompetent U.S. Government officials who have shrugged off the National Academy of Sciences' warning and continue to rely on polygraph screening.

[Anonymous]

Eastwood,

You are clearly the most clueless in a pack of serious contenders.  Go back and read George's last post.  The absence of antipolygraph.com would have a negligible impact on the availability of countermeasure material for those who seek it.  The serious impact of said action would be the serious lack of badly needed, thoroughly researched, and well articulated information for the general citizenry, the mass media, and those within government who either use or are abused through the polygraph screening process.

[dimas]

Maybe it's just me, but haven't most "spies" who have "infiltrated" the U.S. government almost always been Americans?  It seems to me that what we need to fear most is not an Al-Qaeda agent infiltrating our government, but an American government agent, selling out due to greed and want of money.  It is simply ridiculous to insinuate that the "spies" of this world will all get away because of this site.  They have been getting away with things way before this site was even conceived of, and will most likely continue getting away with things when cleared by the "lie detector". Which they have known how to beat all along.  Wake up and quit living in ignorance.

[Skeptic]

.......remind me a lot of the defense attorney who knows his client is guilty, yet defends him anyway.  How so, you say?  Don't you have the least degree of concern that you are teaching poly CM's to those who would like to infiltrate the USG to do us harm?

Innocent or guilty, everyone who's accused gets a defense.  Yet by your logic, they shouldn't get one.  What kind of unAmerican crap are you advocating, Eastwood?

You remind me of people who blame defense attorneys for crime.  Antipolygraph.org is not responsible for the gaping hole in our counterintelligence known as the polygraph -- it's responsible for pointing out that the hole exists.  It is people such as yourself who fight to keep the status quo that are the true threats to national security.

Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Skeptic,

I agree with you that anyone who's accused has the right to a defense, innocent or guilty. But my understanding is that if a defense attorney knows his client to be guilty, the attorney may not represent to the court that his client is innocent.

Ironically, Eastwood's analogy applies better to national security policymakers who, having been made aware that polygraph screening is without validity and that it has no reasonable prospect of ever catching a spy, nonetheless continue to advocate it.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,

I agree with you that anyone who's accused has the right to a defense, innocent or guilty. But my understanding is that if a defense attorney knows his client to be guilty, the attorney may not represent to the court that his client is innocent.

Perhaps I misunderstood Eastwood's statement.  If he meant to refer to a defense attorney misrepresenting his client to the court (rather than simply "defending his client"), then I withdraw my criticism.

Ironically, Eastwood's analogy applies better to national security policymakers who, having been made aware that polygraph screening is without validity and that it has no reasonable prospect of ever catching a spy, nonetheless continue to advocate it.

Quite true.

Skeptic

[gg]

Alll the bashers on this site are all poly examiners

get a life losers

[gelb disliker]

if the poly examiners are so good in finding out if examinees are using counter measures, then why are the poly examiners so offended by this site?   they claim that they are 98% accurate, then let them sort it all out.  methinks that many of us using counter measures are beating them and embarassing them.