How do I react to control questions?

[T.M. Cullen]

 

A very large DOD agency that has been conducting polygraphs for decades. In fact, to add more background I have been working at this agency since 1986 so this is not my first go round. This was my forth periodic reinvestigation so including my pre-employment screening, it was my fifth round of undergoing the polygraph. During my last reinvestigation 5 years ago, I failed my first poly and passed the second one. Another example of the test not being accurate.

You can say it, NSA.  They got me too.

This occurred while I was hooked up to the machine, but in between the actual set of standard polygraph questions. I was only being tested on those standard questions and all the rattling occured in the breaks in between those questiosn.  

Like I've said, it is an INTERROGATION, not a test.  If it was a test, why the need for rattling (and therefore BIASING) the examinee between chart readings?  Just collect and analyze the data and make a pronouncement.

that is very upsetting... especially when your job depends on this stupid test.

Your job is on the line ONLY if you play along and make any kind of admission or volunteer any information.  You know, when they are telling you to "get it all off your chest so nothing will be bothering you about the questions".

Check out the website of an DC attorney last name Cohen.  They CAN NOT fire you base solely on a polygraph CHART.  They CAN fire you based on admission elicited during the polygraph.  So zip the lip, tell them nothing is bothering you, you are answering truthfully.  No matter what they do (scream at you, jump up and down on their desk, scowl and make funny monkey noises...etc.)

BTW, this explains the high theatrics when they have a reaction on the chart, but no admission.

TC

[getrealalready]

S.P.,

You write in part:

...I can tell you that I don't put more credence in unconfirmed bigfoot sightings than I do in unconfirmed claims that someone has told the truth and failed their polygraph....

There exist numerous documented false positive polygraph results in which the true positive culprit was later identified (e.g., Gary Ridgway/Green River serial murder case).  As far as I know there are no documented and generally accepted sightings of Bigfoot.  If you give the same/or like credence to a future claim of a false positive polygraph result as you do a future claim of a Bigfoot sighting you have no sense of probability and/or are a fool.

[SanchoPanza]

S.P.,

You write in part:

...I can tell you that I don't put more credence in unconfirmed bigfoot sightings than I do in unconfirmed claims that someone has told the truth and failed their polygraph....

There exist numerous documented false positive polygraph results in which the true positive culprit was later identified (e.g., Gary Ridgway/Green River serial murder case).  As far as I know there are no documented and generally accepted sightings of Bigfoot.  If you give the same/or like credence to a future claim of a false positive polygraph result as you do a future claim of a Bigfoot sighting you have no sense of probability and/or are a fool.

Getrealalready, You need to get real already If what you say about Ridgeway is true, that would be a false negative rather than a false positive.  

You choosed  to ignore the word unconfirmed in my post in a feeble attempt to make a point even though it was in bold face  both times I used it.

For your information 1000 confirmed false positives or 1000 confirmed false negative reports, if they exist have absolutely ZERO bearing on the credibility of an unconfirmed report. If you think otherwise then you are the fool here not I. The plural of anecdote is not data.

In additition If you intend to post on bulletin boards in the future I think you should be fluent in at least one language, preferably the one in which you post.

Sancho Panza

[SanchoPanza]

Dr. Maschke, for over 8 years now you have made the positive assertion in your book that a person who uses the countermeasures described in your book will be able to  pass a polygraph without their attempts to manipulate the test being detected by the examiner.

The countermeasures we've discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues

TLBTLD page 159.

It is easily understandable why examiners might not want to discuss their methods of detecting countermeasures with you because once you discovered that one of your countermeasure was being detected by a movement sensor you removed it from your repetoire of "no fail" cheating techniques.

Please explain on what basis you made that positive assertion. Any published field or laboratory research that identifies your book as the source material for countermeasures instruction should suffice.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

Dr. Maschke, for over 8 years now you have made the positive assertion in your book that a person who uses the countermeasures described in your book will be able to  pass a polygraph without their attempts to manipulate the test being detected by the examiner.

The countermeasures we've discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues

TLBTLD page 159.

It is easily understandable why examiners might not want to discuss their methods of detecting countermeasures with you because once you discovered that one of your countermeasure was being detected by a movement sensor you removed it from your repetoire of "no fail" cheating techniques.

Please explain on what basis you made that positive assertion. Any published field or laboratory research that identifies your book as the source material for countermeasures instruction should suffice.

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

That 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.

Now please -- at long last -- explain on the basis of precisely what evidence you assert,  "Take Dr. Maschke's advice and attempt Countermeasures and you will get caught and fail."

[getrealalready]

S.P.

I thought you would be more familiar with the background and media reports of such a well-known polygraph screw-up.  Although Gary Ridgway did represent a false negative result, at least one other (innocent) individual was wrongly found to be deceptive (false positive) in that case.  

It is due to to the confirmed false polygraph positives of the past that you should have some perspective regarding the probability of truth regarding future claims of unconfirmed polygraph false positives vs. a future claim of an unconfirmed sighting of Bigfoot.  

I am afraid you have narrowed the diagnosis.  You are a fool and an ignorant one at that.

[Poly-ana]

Ha ha! Oh Sancho, you make me laugh. Your analogies really make no sense at all in relation to this conversation. It's laughable really.

No I did not file a complaint. They would probably be able to get around any such complaint because in fact they did not say "you are a liar" they just kept saying "are you a liar?.... what are you hiding... there must be something you are hiding". So while they may not have technically called me a liar, they just did their best to try to make me feel like one.

I see you are not very familiar with the goings on at my agency. They don't revoke clearances and show you the door after one failed polygraph. In my 20+ years of employment I have known numerous people who have had to retake the polygraph several times during a reinvestigation. I think even they know that they polygraph is too unreliable to get rid of people after one failed polygraph. If they did that, they would be losing a lot of people.

Wrong again all knowing one... there were actually 4 relevant issues explored during each of the 4 times I went in. The same 4 relevant issues each time.

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat. I came here looking for information. However, I will admit that I was feeling so frustrated and hopeless that I was looking into all possibilities.  

I still don't subscribe to your assumption that all you have to do is stay calm and tell the truth, because when I went in for my first test of this go round I was calm. I had been through this before and knew I had nothing to hide so I had nothing to worry about. And yet still I failled. The second and third time I was super stressed out and I think I really psyched myself out about it.

If being calm and telling the truth were fool proof, I would have passed the first time. Besides if the machine's results varied by the calmness of the subject, then can you really say it is really detecting truth or lies?  There are just too many human variables that come into play for any rational person to really think that the polygraph is an absolute measure of truth or lies.

Well, it is amusing to banter with you Sancho.... I still believe it to be pointless. So I am going to go on now and have a life. Maybe you should do the same?

[notguilty1]

Ha ha! Oh Sancho, you make me laugh. Your analogies really make no sense at all in relation to this conversation. It's laughable really.

No I did not file a complaint. They would probably be able to get around any such complaint because in fact they did not say "you are a liar" they just kept saying "are you a liar?.... what are you hiding... there must be something you are hiding". So while they may not have technically called me a liar, they just did their best to try to make me feel like one.

I see you are not very familiar with the goings on at my agency. They don't revoke clearances and show you the door after one failed polygraph. In my 20+ years of employment I have known numerous people who have had to retake the polygraph several times during a reinvestigation. I think even they know that they polygraph is too unreliable to get rid of people after one failed polygraph. If they did that, they would be losing a lot of people.

Wrong again all knowing one... there were actually 4 relevant issues explored during each of the 4 times I went in. The same 4 relevant issues each time.

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat. I came here looking for information. However, I will admit that I was feeling so frustrated and hopeless that I was looking into all possibilities.  

I still don't subscribe to your assumption that all you have to do is stay calm and tell the truth, because when I went in for my first test of this go round I was calm. I had been through this before and knew I had nothing to hide so I had nothing to worry about. And yet still I failled. The second and third time I was super stressed out and I think I really psyched myself out about it.

If being calm and telling the truth were fool proof, I would have passed the first time. Besides if the machine's results varied by the calmness of the subject, then can you really say it is really detecting truth or lies?  There are just too many human variables that come into play for any rational person to really think that the polygraph is an absolute measure of truth or lies.

Well, it is amusing to banter with you Sancho.... I still believe it to be pointless. So I am going to go on now and have a life. Maybe you should do the same?

Poly, You will never get Sancho to see the "truth" about his silly machine and the profession he defends.
His livelihood depends on his being right os at least making most people believe he is right. Thats how the scam works.
With the advent of the internet, people can do research on topics like this and low and behold..... the cover is off the scam.
Now, For his scam to continue to work he MUST make the casual observer believe that George and all that have actually experienced the ill effects of the scam( and many, like you on several occasions )
that we are all a bunch of lying whiners.
His ill intent is  increasingly apparent in his subsequent posts.
I am happy however to see that people like you come and tell their stories.
You are right BTW if your agency put any credence ( other than following policy) on polygraph, you and any one else with security clearances would be relieved of your duties on the first failed Poly...it would only make sense.
Seems like Sancho is the lone wolf in protecting this "technology"  

[SanchoPanza]

Laugh if it makes you feel good poly-ana but any error I made in describing the type of test you took stems directly from your pitiful inability to describe the details of your test when asked. Unless of course you deliberately mislead me in order to avoid getting an answer to your question that you didn't want to hear. Are you intellectually incapable or deliberately dishonest? You must be at least one,  possibly both.

In your post from 9:39 this morning you said

I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something

now in your last post you say

they did not say "you are a liar"

On your first post on this board you state

But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

and then now you claim

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat.

I'm starting to see why you have problems with passing a polygraph. It's  because you make mutually exclusive statements and then claim both are the truth.


Sancho Panza

[SanchoPanza]

Dr. Maschke,

You statement

That 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.

May have been accurate over 10 years ago when the last research you cited was completed, but what in the world would make you think that no progress has been made since. Especially when you are well aware that research published since your book first came out convinced you that sphincter contraction was detectable to the point you began warning your readers not to try it.

If you will look, you will find published studies as late as 2007 that countermeasures are detectable and that honest people who employ them actually lessen their chances of passing a test. Like I said before. If you had the information you would begin trying to figure out how to get around the detection methods. The information is out there if you will look for it,  but I am not going to do your research for you especially since I believe you would make the information available to enemies of our country.

I wll not be chided, baited, tricked, or coerced into helping you help criminals in any way.

Kpminam is just the tip of the iceberg. You are either going to have to figure out a way to educate yourself or get out of the countermeasure business.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Laugh if it makes you feel good poly-ana but any error I made in describing the type of test you took stems directly from your pitiful inability to describe the details of your test when asked. Unless of course you deliberately mislead me in order to avoid getting an answer to your question that you didn't want to hear. Are you intellectually incapable or deliberately dishonest? You must be at least one,  possibly both.

In your post from 9:39 this morning you said

I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something

now in your last post you say

they did not say "you are a liar"

On your first post on this board you state

But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

and then now you claim

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat.

I'm starting to see why you have problems with passing a polygraph. It's  because you make mutually exclusive statements and then claim both are the truth.


Sancho Panza

Poly-ana
As you can see what I said is true. Now, he has, ( since he cannot confess that Poly's don't work) to relegating you to the class of "purposely misleading " and "intellectually incapable".

I am convinced that Sancho is nothing more than a troll that goes on web sites just to interact negatively with others because they haven't the cojones to stand up that way to any one in real life.

I mean, he just ...... can't be that stupid and, I mean it in this way :
"dazed and unable to think clearly"

[Evan S]

Laugh if it makes you feel good poly-ana but any error I made in describing the type of test you took stems directly from your pitiful inability to describe the details of your test when asked. Unless of course you deliberately mislead me in order to avoid getting an answer to your question that you didn't want to hear. Are you intellectually incapable or deliberately dishonest? You must be at least one,  possibly both.

In your post from 9:39 this morning you said

I mean they called me a liar and accused me of hiding something

now in your last post you say

they did not say "you are a liar"

On your first post on this board you state

But exactly how can you augment your reactions to the control questions?

and then now you claim

I did not exactly come here looking for a way to cheat.

I'm starting to see why you have problems with passing a polygraph. It's  because you make mutually exclusive statements and then claim both are the truth.


Sancho Panza

Sancho:

I am disgusted with your unsubstantiated accusations against Poly-ana, and you owe her an apology.  Her polygraph experience is similar to mine.  I work for a large aerospace company in Southern California on classified work that requires a TES polygraph about every five years.  Last polygraph was in 2000.  Actually was performed four separate times.  The examiner knew I had taken a previous polygraph in 1994 (I did not volunteer this to him, he researched it before the test) and made a sour remark to the effect that the 1994 polygraph was shaky.  (If he is reading this message, I invite him to respond to my posting.  He can figure out who I am.)  His researching my previous polygraph (coming into the test with prejudice) and his sour remark were ethical violations.

How can you say that remaining calm is necessary to pass a polygraph?  The fear of failing the polygraph could possibly lead to the revocation of the security clearance and possibly the loss of the job.  If the polygraph test is scientific, why should it matter if the subject is calm or agitated?

Poly-ana eventually passed the polygraph by being willing to take it as many times as asked, and by answering the relevant questions in the negative.  It had nothing to do with her innocence (probability of being guilty of committing espionage, sabotage, and/or terrorism is about 1/10,000, probability of being innocent is 9,999/10,000).  An analogy:  A coin will eventually land on heads if tossed enough times.

Sancho...are you really Dr. Gordon Barland?

Regards,
Evan S

[George W. Maschke]

Dr. Maschke,

You statement

That 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.

May have been accurate over 10 years ago when the last research you cited was completed, but what in the world would make you think that no progress has been made since. Especially when you are well aware that research published since your book first came out convinced you that sphincter contraction was detectable to the point you began warning your readers not to try it.

It is not any published research that convinced me that the anal sphincter contraction used as a polygraph countermeasure might be detectable. To my knowledge, no such research has been published. Rather, the reason we no longer suggest the anal sphincter contraction as a countermeasure is that the claim that such can be detected with piezoelectric sensor pads seems plausible.

If you will look, you will find published studies as late as 2007 that countermeasures are detectable and that honest people who employ them actually lessen their chances of passing a test. Like I said before. If you had the information you would begin trying to figure out how to get around the detection methods. The information is out there if you will look for it,  but I am not going to do your research for you especially since I believe you would make the information available to enemies of our country.

I wll not be chided, baited, tricked, or coerced into helping you help criminals in any way.

If studies showing that polygraphers can detect countermeasures have been published, then by definition they're public, and there is no harm in citing them. I do follow the polygraph literature, and have not seen a single study showing any ability of the polygraph community to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The reason you won't cite any such article is not that you don't want to help criminals. You won't provide a citation because you have lied. No such study has been published.

Kpminam is just the tip of the iceberg. You are either going to have to figure out a way to educate yourself or get out of the countermeasure business.

If I were presented with compelling evidence that the polygraph community has developed a reliable method of countermeasure detection, I would certainly not suggest that anyone use such to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome. But there is no such evidence. Which is why you cannot cite a single article to support the notion that the polygraph community can reliably detect countermeasures.

[SanchoPanza]

Dr. Maschke,

ONE MORE TIME   I am not going to do your research for you especially since I believe you would make the information available to enemies of our country. I wll not be chided, baited, tricked, or coerced into helping you help criminals in any way. Your last post was a fairly feeble attempt at baiting. Its there GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF. It was there when the NAS did their review, they just found themselves incapable of obtaining high enough security clearances to view what was then, classified information. A lot of the best information remains classified because OUR government does not want people like you to make the information readily available to criminals and the enemies of our government. So while there are published studies out there if you will look that support my contention, the information you really should be worried about, you probably will never be allowed to read because you have been determined to be unsuitable for the appropriate clearances.

Considering your book and the behavior you endorse on this site, the act of you calling ME a liar must be some kind of official acceptance into the membership of your deceit society. How do you reconcile the fact that you tell your readers it is OK to tell lies, deliberately conceal information and even provides advice on how to lie , while at the same time you and  your  disciples call people like me, who believe in polygraph, and  polygraph examiners liars without any substantial proof.  Until you explain that I must decline your offer of membership.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

Sancho Panza,

You are compounding your lie by repeating it. There are no published studies that support the notion that polygraph examiners can detect the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

You are not just a fool. You are a knowingly dishonest fool. Shame on you.