Sad Stats

[Mysterymeat]

George,

I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you;

Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.

These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified. I also disqualified several others however, they denied visiting your academy as well as Doug William's. Without an admission, I won't consider them as "confirmed" countermeasures.

These are real people George, who had real dreams and goals of becoming law enforcement officers. I doubt that any other angency will every give them a second chance.

I know you would like to think you are providing a community service here but this truth is, you are ending a lot of careers for people who just might have made excellent officers. What a shame.

Since cancer screening exams also offer false readings at times, perhaps you should establish a second web-site to ban them as well. Just think what a hit you would be for those people who make a living treating this disease!

Goerge, you are a brilliant man. It is just to bad that you have chosen to send your talents to the "re-cycle bin".


Regards,

MM

[Ludovico]

What a waste.

You gotta find a better way of grindin' yer axe.

[Sergeant1107]

How many truthful people did you deem deceptive and fail?

I believe that number is the truly sad statistic, and is even more so because you have no idea what it is.

[George W. Maschke]

George,

I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you;

Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.

These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified....

Your recent posting history inspires little confidence in your candor or sincerity. Why should anyone believe your foregoing claim? Your credibility would be increased if you would kindly post audio recordings of the aforesaid admissions.

[Paradiddle]

You have got to be kidding George. You really don't believe him? I get hits like his all the time also. You are clearly deluded about what takes place in the field and you seem to rely and reside with what takes place in your theoretical mind.

[George W. Maschke]

You have got to be kidding George. You really don't believe him? I get hits like his all the time also. You are clearly deluded about what takes place in the field and you seem to rely and reside with what takes place in your theoretical mind.

Paradiddle,

I invite you, too, to post audio recordings of your countermeasure confessions for September 2007.

[Ludovico]

I had two tests this week in which the misguided souls were unable to verify their statements because they were goofing around, as advised in your book. One would have been dismissed (not filed) by the DA, pending a review of the test - he'll have to resolve his case the hard way. The other might not be a pedophile, though he admits he did something egregious - who's going to take his word for it that there isn't a whole lot more? (perhaps there is)

[Paradiddle]

I took the last 3 weeks off---I could post a recording of my last nap?

[George W. Maschke]

I took the last 3 weeks off---I could post a recording of my last nap?

Audio recordings of your countermeasure confessions for August 2007 would suffice.

[Paradiddle]

Cute George.
A. All recordings are video and digital.
B. I only run sex offender treatment/supervision exams--which under HIPPA laws, are confidential. You can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----you are only interested in countering counter countermeasures. Sound rediculous? So is your time-stalling and face-saving request.

[George W. Maschke]

Cute George.
A. All recordings are video and digital.

The audio track may be separated.

B. I only run sex offender treatment/supervision exams--which under HIPPA laws, are confidential.

Identifying information may be sanitized.

You can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----you are only interested in countering counter countermeasures. Sound rediculous? So is your time-stalling and face-saving request.

Claims that "countermeasure detection works quite well" are unsupported by evidence.

[Paradiddle]

Cute George.
A. All recordings are video and digital.

The audio track may be separated.

B. I only run sex offender treatment/supervision exams--which under HIPPA laws, are confidential.

Identifying information may be sanitized.

You can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----you are only interested in countering counter countermeasures. Sound rediculous? So is your time-stalling and face-saving request.

Claims that "countermeasure detection works quite well" are unsupported by evidence.

Why don't you just speak your unscientific dribble about your countermeasures and how elite and sureptitious they are, rather than attempting to bilke me for film editing money and near federal law breaking (HIPPA) over your empty point. The fact is, this topic and thread does not warrant your posts, as the title states ""Sad Stats"---and it will contain Examiner accounts of countermeasures caught. You can cry "foul" all you want---hell you might even ask for stool samples of the examinees---but you and I both know that your product is full of weaknesses, and it is your claims that are unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. Your sales pitch is fabulous, but your dogs won't hunt.

[George W. Maschke]

Paradiddle,

I'd like to see some evidence that your and Mysterymeat's claims of frequent countermeasure detection followed by confession are true. If you are not willing to provide any evidence, so be it. But it doesn't enhance your credibility.

As for the countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it is documented with ample references that skeptical readers may (and are encouraged to) check for themselves.

[Paradiddle]

Please George, I am asking for peer-reviewed scientific proof, not references and citations. They are not one and the same.

[George W. Maschke]

Paradiddle,

I am not obtuse. The citations I mentioned include peer-reviewed research that supports the notion that CQT polygraphy is vulnerable to "point" countermeasures (applied at the point where the "control" questions are asked), that such countermeasures are easily learned, and that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them. You'll find citations and abstracts of the peer-reviewed studies in questions at pp. 204-207 (in the bibliography) of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.