Challenge to Dr. George W. Maschke, PhD and/or Gino J. Scalabrini

[LieBabyCryBaby]

"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the hell out of me!"

Gunny Highway

That's the best he can come up with, JPW. And you're right about something: If George and Gino aren't credible because they lack any experience, training or credentials to render opinions regarding the polygraph process, why do we waste our time on Cullen and Sergeant? Why do we enjoy shooting fish in a barrel?

[T.Cullen]

To the unsuspecting reader of this forum, just passing by because you're worried about taking a polygraph in the near future, I once again counsel you to avoid the "snake oil" George is selling when he tells you that you must mess around with the polygraph process in order to pass the exam.

Thanks for the advice Mr.Cry baby, but you'd be more credible if you'd simply point out what specifically in TLBTLD you disagree with, rather than rant like you have.  Certainly a man of your vast experience and astute  intellect would have no problemo doing this.

Maybe you and JPW should get together with Sancho in Ponca City and chill.  I heard the fishing is great there. I've always found a relaxing weekend fishing has help me to collect my thoughts and reground myself.  Maybe you should try it.  When you get back Monday, you can think with a fresh mind and take a look at GM's book and let us know what you find so inaccurate.  We can all start fresh and maybe clear things up for you.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Cullen, you sure come across as a dimwit sometimes. As I said earlier, TLBTLD is a good little information booklet with some information taken directly from polygraph manuals, with a few lab studies selected according to George's bias. Where it really goes off track is when it states as though it were a proven fact that countermeasures work, and suggests that countermeasures should be used to ensure that one passes the test.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and there is no research to back up this claim. Furthermore, neither of the authors has experienced passing a polygraph by using the countermeasures they advocate. Rather, they give very dubious advice to people who would do much better to ignore advice from those with no experience or qualifications to give it.  As I stated in another post, you are like shooting fish in a barrel, Cullen, and hardly worth my or JPW's time and effort.  George has no credibility, and you have less than zero. Since you can't come up with anything of value in these discussions, I will choose to ignore your "rants."

[Sergeant1107]

I realize that the question "Do you consider yourself more or less qualified to render criticism, training, or advice regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures than George and Gino?" is both loaded and double-edged interrogatory.  

The possibility you seem to have ignored is that I don't care about who is more or less qualified than this guy or that guy.  It's irrelevant and I have never stopped to think about it.  If someone authors a logical, well reasoned post what does it matter how many degrees they have or how many years they have spent as a polygraph examiner?

If you disagree with a post you are able to post a dissenting opinion.  There is no certification or professional standing required to post on the Internet.

If you wish to only engage in discussions with polygraph examiners you can go to PolygraphPlace.com and do that.  I don't see why anyone would come to a board on the AntiPolygraph.org web stie and preface a good portion of their posts by denigrating the lack of experience the original poster has as a polygraph examiner.

Anyone who comes to this site is sure to know that this site is an anti-polygraph web site.  By coming to this site they are obviously looking for something other than the official company line on the accuracy of the polygraph.  If any such person wanted to hear from polygraph examiners about whether or not the polygraph was an accurate method of detecting deception they would certainly not go to a site named "AntiPolygraph.org" in order to do so.

By constantly pointing out that various posters are not polygraph examiners, or that they lack experience in the field of polygraphing, or that they have not conducted a sufficient number of polygraph exams to be called an expert, you are not telling anyone anything they don't already know.  All you are doing is engaging in pointless ad hom attacks that simply make your own posts less credible.

If George starts posting on PolygraphPlace.com and starts giving advice on the polygraph it would probably be appropriate to inquire about his credentials, since people going to that message board tend to assume their questions are being answered by a polygraph examiner.  There is no such assumption on this message board.