The kind of people that this forum draws.

[PrivateSnowball]

I believe that this site has good intentions on keeping honest people from failing polygraphs, but it kind of sickens me the kind of people who come here and what they come here for. Before visiting this site and were unaware of the inaccuracy of polygraphs, they probably believed that it technically tells the difference between lie and truth. Take sex offenders on parole/probation for example, do you honestly believe they came to this site seeking information about the accuracy of polygraph tests or how to not fail while telling the truth.  I guess it is possible, but most likely not.  They most likely want to know a way they can stay out of jail and not have their recidivism be discovered.  So they can continue to prey upon the weak to satisfy their disgusting desires.  Although they have open access to the book like everyone else, how can you not have a guilty conscience about providing further assitance to these types of people.  I think its disgusting and personally hope they go back to prison and get gangbanged in the shower.

[George W. Maschke]

If polygraphy were a valid test for detection of deception, it wouldn't matter whether people knew how it works. While this website was indeed created for the purpose of helping the truthful protect themselves against the danger of a false positive outcome, there is no way to make the information provided here available to such persons without also making it available to everyone. Those who should have guilty consciences are the corrupt and/or incompetent public officials who wilfully ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence against polygraphy and continue to rely on this pseudoscience for national security and public safety purposes.

For related discussion, please see my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public."

[day2day]

I believe that this site has good intentions on keeping honest people from failing polygraphs, but it kind of sickens me the kind of people who come here and what they come here for. Before visiting this site and were unaware of the inaccuracy of polygraphs, they probably believed that it technically tells the difference between lie and truth. Take sex offenders on parole/probation for example, do you honestly believe they came to this site seeking information about the accuracy of polygraph tests or how to not fail while telling the truth.  I guess it is possible, but most likely not.  They most likely want to know a way they can stay out of jail and not have their recidivism be discovered.  So they can continue to prey upon the weak to satisfy their disgusting desires.  Although they have open access to the book like everyone else, how can you not have a guilty conscience about providing further assitance to these types of people.  I think its disgusting and personally hope they go back to prison and get gangbanged in the shower.

...and Walmart should feel guilty for selling shotgun shells (which someone could purchase in order to murder another), gas stations should feel remorse for selling petrol (it could be used by an arsonist), pharmacies should feel bad for selling cold medicine (could be used to manufacture meth), etc., etc.

Your post leads to a question:  Why did you come here?

[Sergeant1107]

Rather than blaming the person or people who made it known that the polygraph test is not capable of detecting truth or deception, it seems more appropriate to blame the person or people who decide to utilize such a test for something as important as monitoring convicted sex offenders.

[PrivateSnowball]

...and Walmart should feel guilty for selling shotgun shells (which someone could purchase in order to murder another), gas stations should feel remorse for selling petrol (it could be used by an arsonist), pharmacies should feel bad for selling cold medicine (could be used to manufacture meth), etc., etc.

Your post leads to a question:  Why did you come here?

No, it's not the same.  Having the book available to everyone on the internet=what your comparing to.  Giving these kind of people additional help in the forum= selling ammunition to someone who said they intend to commit a murder with it, or selling cold medicine who stated they were gonna use it to make meth.

[retcopper]

George:

Please look up the meaning of corrupt before you paint all of us polygraphers with the same brush.  

[George W. Maschke]

George:

Please look up the meaning of corrupt before you paint all of us polygraphers with the same brush.  

retcopper,

My remark about "corrupt and/or incompetent public officials" was not directed at polygraphers, but rather at policymakers who have irresponsibly chosen to rely on the quackery that the polygraph community passes off as science. That said, I do consider the polygraph "profession" to be a highly disreputable one, rife with corruption and incompetence.

[Twoblock]

PrivateSnowball

On one thread you are trying to pick people's brains on how to become a LEO. Isn't that trying to get a leg up on the hiring process?

Then on this thread you berate the kind of people who are drawn to this site. It drew you didn't it? You must be contemplating using countermeasures.

Most of us have your views on sex offenders but I think you have too many preconceived ideas to make a good LEO. I would suggest you are better suited for a parole officer. Doesn't pay as much, but then, you would be dealing with criminals and not the general public.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

I see where you're coming from, Snowball.  But here is my own opinion as an experienced polygrapher:

I believe, based on experience rather than heresay, fantasy, desire, or personal agenda, that the countermeasures information on this site does NOT help a guilty examinee pass a polygraph exam administered by a competent examiner.  When I say "guilty examinee," I'm referring to someone who really has something serious to hide, such as sex offenders, which you refer to in your post.  Questions such as "Did you use marijuana more than five times?" MIGHT--and I repeat MIGHT--not have the same response impetus as sex crime or other more serious crimes questions, of course.

However, I understand how you feel about this site possibly catering to criminals.  The fact that George and others on this site actually believe the information they provide works speaks to us on two levels.  First, they believe they are doing a service for innocent examinees.  If this were actually the case, then I would say, "Good job and God bless George et. al for their service."  But on another level, since they DO believe in the validity of their information, we have to question their priorities and reasoning, because they MUST feel that the benefits to the "innocent" outweigh the harm that could be caused when bad people are assisted by good intentions.  In this case, your analogy of known criminals being unwittingly given weapons by people who don't know any better rings true.

[digithead]

I see where you're coming from, Snowball.  But here is my own opinion as an experienced polygrapher:

I believe, based on experience rather than heresay, fantasy, desire, or personal agenda, that the countermeasures information on this site does NOT help a guilty examinee pass a polygraph exam administered by a competent examiner.  When I say "guilty examinee," I'm referring to someone who really has something serious to hide, such as sex offenders, which you refer to in your post.  Questions such as "Did you use marijuana more than five times?" MIGHT--and I repeat MIGHT--not have the same response impetus as sex crime or other more serious crimes questions, of course.

So is it the examiner or the machine that matters? What makes someone a competent examiner? Is it the questions they ask? The manner in which they ask them? If this is the part that makes or breaks usefulness of countermeasures then why isn't there more uniformity of process and standardization from examiner to examiner?

However, I understand how you feel about this site possibly catering to criminals.  The fact that George and others on this site actually believe the information they provide works speaks to us on two levels.  First, they believe they are doing a service for innocent examinees.  If this were actually the case, then I would say, "Good job and God bless George et. al for their service."  But on another level, since they DO believe in the validity of their information, we have to question their priorities and reasoning, because they MUST feel that the benefits to the "innocent" outweigh the harm that could be caused when bad people are assisted by good intentions.  In this case, your analogy of known criminals being unwittingly given weapons by people who don't know any better rings true.

How many articles on the effectiveness of countermeasures are in Polygraph? Do you not believe in your own field's literature and research? Since their information on countermeasures is culled from the polygraph literature written mostly by pro-polgyraph people (Honts, etc.), you're attacking your own field and claiming that its research has no validity. I find that quite funny...

And since you're posting on this site leads me to believe that if countermeasures did not matter then you wouldn't be here trying to persuade people not to use them...

And I don't think George is unwittingly aiding criminals, he is simply giving methods for defeating a pseudoscientific test and demonstrating the danger and folly of its use by showing how easy it is to fool...

[Bill Crider]

The polygraph test is not a valid test. There are too many uncontrollable variables--the skill and effectiveness of the pre-interview, the subject's psyche as it relates to what makes them nervous, the validity of the control questions and many other factors. By relying on chart tracings despite all of these uncontrollable issues, the fault is yours.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

So is it the examiner or the machine that matters? What makes someone a competent examiner?


How many articles on the effectiveness of countermeasures are in Polygraph? Do you not believe in your own field's literature and research?

And since you're posting on this site leads me to believe that if countermeasures did not matter then you wouldn't be here trying to persuade people not to use them...

And I don't think George is unwittingly aiding criminals, he is simply giving methods for defeating a pseudoscientific test and demonstrating the danger and folly of its use by showing how easy it is to fool...

A "competent" examiner, in my experience, will often spot countermeasures because most examinees do not have the ability to selectively fine tune their responses to make them appear natural.  When I have caught countermeasures, they have stood out like a sore thumb.  COULD I be fooled by someone very skilled at manipulating his or her physiology enough to make the responses actually appear natural?  Of course.  With a lot of practice, a person might become skilled enough to do this.  However, even with my knowledge and experience AND access to the equipment and assistance from other experienced examiners, I can't even convincingly do it myself.  But for those readers who want to try it with a competent examiner, I say, in the words of Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky . . . punk?"

Actually, I'm NOT trying to persuade people not to use countermeasures.  It's fine with me if they use them.  I've caught examinees using countermeasures, and it simply ends the process for them.  Each time this happens, it allows us to avoid hiring a person who lacks integrity.

You can spout off all you want about this or that study.  Yes, I have read most of the studies used to reinforce the arguments on both sides of the fence.  But when it comes right down to it, I'll take actual experience over laboratory experiments, conjecture, hopes, fears, and hearsay.  Have you used the polygraph as an examiner hundreds or thousands of times to gain experience, or are you just repeating the words of others because their words support your own wishes?

And as for George being "unwitting," again we should question the rationalization that it is justifiable to try to help the "innocent" by making weapons equally available to both them and the guilty.

[George W. Maschke]

A "competent" examiner, in my experience, will often spot countermeasures because most examinees do not have the ability to selectively fine tune their responses to make them appear natural....

In practice, you have no way of knowing how often (that is, in what percentage of cases) a polygrapher -- whatever his "competence" may be -- will spot countermeasures. The available research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot do so at better than chance levels.

And as for George being "unwitting," again we should question the rationalization that it is justifiable to try to help the "innocent" by making weapons equally available to both them and the guilty.

Indeed, the decision to make countermeasure information publicly available, and free, was consciously made. I believe that the public interest lies in the truth about polygraphy being told. Such information will only help liars to beat the system to the extent that public officials remain stupid/incompetent/corrupt enough continue relying on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

George,

I don't know if I could stand being you, pretending to be a polygraph expert when all you have are selective laboratory studies, the subjective opinions of other people, and your own polygraph failures to support your views.

You can call polygraph a "pseudoscience" and continue to rationalize and justify both this site's existence and its goals, but it doesn't change anything.  You are still simply a polygraph failure who surely deserved to fail.  After all, didn't you fail not simply one of the relevant questions on your FBI polygraph, but ALL of them?

I know I'm not going to convince you of anything because you have too much at stake personally in maintaining this site.   Likewise, with only the above listed supports for your viewpoint, you won't convince many experienced polygraphers to follow the pied piper's call into the river.  But if examinees read your material and buy into it enough to use it, they either have something serious they are attempting to hide, or they are innocent examinees taking a big risk of ending their application processes.

[EosJupiter]

Likewise, with only the above listed supports for your viewpoint, you won't convince many experienced polygraphers to follow the pied piper's call into the river.  But if examinees read your material and buy into it enough to use it, they either have something serious they are attempting to hide, or they are innocent examinees taking a big risk of ending their application processes.

LieBabyCryBaby,

You must be either pretty arrogent or greatly scared of this website to spew forth such venom. Could it be that you have been beaten by those with the knowlege and audacity to carry out countermeasures. Something tells me  that even more so you have alot of $$$ tied up into your polygraph equipment and software, and laptop, and your services seem to not be needed so much anymore. Otherwise why would you come here and try to scare readers with, oh if you read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector", You will fail and fail badly. Funny I see more testimonials on this website about those that have been successful then those who have been caught.  And I for one will take my chances with my own council, and capabilities. And on a personal note, I would by far take Georges advice, over some BS peddling polygrapher every time. Remember its the likes of you PDD examiners that created this backlash and this website. And more people keep reading everyday and will continue to beat your BS machine and you. Something tells me that beating your box would not be hard.

Regards ...