My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed)

[triple x]

Polyman2002,

Polyman2002 wrote:
"If you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you?"

Where did I say that I did?

Polyman2002 wrote:
"Think about it.  Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques."

You are completely missing my point. I'm simply pointing-out that upon completion of two bureau pre-employment polygraph test's, they do not know if I employed countermeasures or not. In their own words, "I did too good to be true."

Their verbatim response to my test results were; "you did too good to be true", and "no one does that good".

The FBI failed me strictly because I scored better on the charts than they think I should have. They should have just flipped a coin, which would have been just as accurate. They simply assume I must have cheated because I scored better than they thought I should have.

I ask you; where is any proof of reliable scientific study, case study, blind study, any study at all perhaps I failed to mention, that supports "any claim" of being accurate at detecting polygraph countermeasures?


triple_x

[Fair Chance]

Dear Triple-X,

For about the past five days, there has been an influx of personal attacks lacking any intellectual arguements.  Little "george", "Polydonotlie", and "Polyman2002" are clones of a mind lacking any ability to think beyond one dimension.  Please be flattered that they were able to focus and concentrate for more then fifteen seconds and read your thread.  I think that it will be a group effort of this website to help them develop their debating skills and scientific arguement for they have been lacking in all areas.

Many have inferred that they are polygraph operators who are irritated with this website.   I wound not want to insult any person, even a polygraph operator like that for these people truly are intellectually challanged when it comes to presenting clear and logical ideas.

[triple x]

Fair_Chance,

I appreciate the "heads-up" with regard to the referenced culprits and their insulting and unwarranted posts on the board.

Following my previous post, I perused the board and noted several unwarranted insults, and personal attacks by the referenced individuals you mentioned. I now realize I fail victim to their ploy...


Respectfully,
triple_x

[patriot]

Skeptic -  In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!!  In other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see!  it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system.  If others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly.  We can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday.  I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!), then more people will attempt countermeasures, get caught, become disgruntled with the system they never even gave a fair chance, help bolster the lawsuit, help the initial losers feel good about their own failures, etc.  For example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant.  Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government.  A little scary don't you think?!  Makes you wonder what his real motives are.  Imagine if Maschke was successful in his drive to "outlaw" poly, how many crucial intelligence cases regarding national security would be lost, if poly couldn't be used.  Or is that what he wants to see happen?  Might help his middle eastern friends infiltrate this country even more than what they've already done.  As the NAS ultimately stated regarding poly, "THERE'S NOTHING BETTER".  Or was that sentence left out when Maschke posted the NAS findings for all of his anti-poly friends to read??!

[Fair Chance]

Dear Patriot,

In the Middle Ages, they used to bleed people in order to "cure them."  Many people died from this process because "there was nothing better at the time."  We now look back upon it and say, "How barbaric!"  We will soon refer to polygraph testing for security in the same way in the future.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic -  In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!!  In other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see!  it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system.  If others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly.

Patriot,
There's just one problem with your analysis: it is beyond dispute that the polygraph as it is used today falsely flags many innocent people.  The NAS's study has buried that particular argument.  It's over with.  Done for.  The debate is finished, and you lost before you began; you arrived about one month too late.

We can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday.  I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!),

Sure you are, Patriot.  Care to provide some proof?  Dr. Richardson has issued a simple challenge that should make it easy for you.  Think of the fame and fortune that would be yours if you prove your ability to detect countermeasures publicly!

For example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant.  Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government.  A little scary don't you think?!  Makes you wonder what his real motives are.

Even if you could provide proof for any or all of the above, what do these things have to do with the efficacy and fairness of polygraph testing?

As the NAS ultimately stated regarding poly, "THERE'S NOTHING BETTER".  Or was that sentence left out when Maschke posted the NAS findings for all of his anti-poly friends to read??!

Actually, the NAS ultimately stated the polygraph should be abolished for security screening.  The "nothing better" referred specifically to methods of lie detection, not security screening.  Perhaps if you would actually read the report and not rely on the DoDPI/APA talking points, you wouldn't appear quite so much the fool.

Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Patriot,

Regarding the following:

For example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant.  Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government.

I have publicly mentioned on numerous occassions (including a written statement submitted for the record to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary at its 25 April 2001 hearing on polygraph screening, and on national television on CBS 60 Minutes II) that I "failed" an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. However, I made no "significant admissions" whatsoever with regard to drug use (or any of the relevant questions). I have never used any illegal drug, nor have I ever used any legal drug illegally. And I do not currently work for the Iranian government, nor have I ever done so in the past.

[patriot]

Maschke - I am not disputing what "public statements" you may have made, however, I know for a fact you made illegal drug use admissions during the course of your polygraph, & that is ultimately what did you in.  Obviously you are very bitter about that, and have actually lied many times over in your "public statements".  Also, I realize you do not outwardly work for the Iranian government, but instead, a psuedo linguistic services outfit (overseas) that has ultimate ties to the Iranian government.

And to you Skeptic, what does your God's background have to do with the legitimacy of polygraph?  Do you really have to ask?  Obviously if he's lying about his own poly experience, and his employer, he cannot be trusted to be truthful about anything he speaks.  Whether it be about poly, or his reasons for trying to discredit it.  I noticed your God did not address the issue I brought up about the demise of crucial intelligence/national security investigations/information if poly is banned.  Again, it seems as if his motivations are not would he would like you to believe.

Also Skeptic, regardless of what the NAS said about screening exams, again, I reiterate, "THERE IS NOTHING BETTER".  Deal with it!!  The point they were addressing, as am I, nothing better exists in lie detection, no matter the scenario you're testing.  And, unlike many on this site, I do not need public recognition of the good work I'm doing.  I've got the written confessions, I don't need to share them with you to feed my ego.  I stand behind my patriotic work.  Keep setting them up on this site, & I'll keep knockin 'em down.

[Lawpolyman]

Way to go. Ive been administering Polygraph for about 1 year and have gotten 8 confessions. Two of these were from child molesters. If it hadnt been for the polygraph and my charts they would have gone free and re-offended.
I don't think you had this in mind when you started anti-poly.
At least I hope you didn't.

[George W. Maschke]

Patriot,

You write:

Maschke - I am not disputing what "public statements" you may have made, however, I know for a fact you made illegal drug use admissions during the course of your polygraph, & that is ultimately what did you in.

How do you "know" this?

Obviously you are very bitter about that, and have actually lied many times over in your "public statements".

Oh? Please tell me more.

Also, I realize you do not outwardly work for the Iranian government, but instead, a psuedo [sic] linguistic services outfit (overseas) that has ultimate ties to the Iranian government.

I see. So why did you knowingly and falsely state that I work for the Iranian government?

[Skeptic]

And to you Skeptic, what does your God's background have to do with the legitimacy of polygraph?  Do you really have to ask?  Obviously if he's lying about his own poly experience, and his employer, he cannot be trusted to be truthful about anything he speaks. Whether it be about poly, or his reasons for trying to discredit it.  I noticed your God did not address the issue I brought up about the demise of crucial intelligence/national security investigations/information if poly is banned.  Again, it seems as if his motivations are not would he would like you to believe.

Watch "patriot" fail to back up any of his libelous statements regarding Mr. Maschke.  Advice to the casual reader: don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so.

Talk is cheap, "patriot".  And libel is actionable.

Also Skeptic, regardless of what the NAS said about screening exams, again, I reiterate, "THERE IS NOTHING BETTER".  Deal with it!!  The point they were addressing, as am I, nothing better exists in lie detection, no matter the scenario you're testing.

"Patriot", if my point were a bird, you'd have shit on your forehead.

The primary findings of the NAS, which you ignored in your screed, was that the polygraph is a danger to national security and should not be used for security screening purposes.  The lack of adequate "lie detection" methodology to replace the polygraph (which itself is inadequate) does not mean the polygraph is better than nothing -- as the NAS explicitly stated.

And, unlike many on this site, I do not need public recognition of the good work I'm doing.  I've got the written confessions, I don't need to share them with you to feed my ego.  I stand behind my patriotic work.  Keep setting them up on this site, & I'll keep knockin 'em down.

Patriot has obviously completely missed the point of the NAS report.  Perhaps they should add "reading comprehension" to the required coursework for polygraphers?

Skeptic

[beech trees]

Skeptic -  In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!!

I fail to see the logic of your assertion. If someone successfully passed their polygraph while employing countermeasures, wouldn't they be joyous and not miserable?

In other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see!  it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system.

I'm curious which posts specifically you feel are counterfeit or embellished or mere repetitions by the same poster. Could you point them out and tell us who you think is the culprit, and why?

If others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly.

Unfortunately the hard facts don't bear out your fantasy theory. The National Academy of Sciences report indicates that an honest person has an equally random chance of passing a polygraph as a dishonest person.

We can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday.  I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!)

Are you really? Everyday you catch one or more of your polygraph subjects attempting countermeasures? Who are these people? Would you mind providing specifics as to the kinds of countermeasures employed, how you detected them, and how you then obtained 'full confessions'?

...then more people will attempt countermeasures, get caught, become disgruntled with the system they never even gave a fair chance, help bolster the lawsuit, help the initial losers feel good about their own failures, etc.

Ohhhhh I get it now. We're here spreading the disinformation that polygraphy is nothing but a sham of a pseudo-science masquerading as legitimate, and that anyone with fairly short notice can master simple, easy to use physical and behavioral countermeasures that are undetectable by The State. That way, when people are foolish enough to believe those assertions, they employ the countermeasures, are effortlessly caught by people like 'patriot' here, and then those same foolish people are somehow secretly indoctrinated by us to come BACK to this website and lie that their State-sponsored interrogator didn't know whether to shit or go blind, so dazzling was their use of these countermeasures... thus enticing still MORE people to believe what I guess we should now (according to the Patriot Braintrust) call 'The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector'.......... Ummmmm yeah. That's it.

Sherlock Holmes you ain't sport.

Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government.  A little scary don't you think?!  Makes you wonder what his real motives are.

Must be that ring of Netherland-based American citizen opium-smoking Iranian operatives I've heard tell about. All very 'hush-hush' don't you know.

Imagine if Maschke was successful in his drive to "outlaw" poly, how many crucial intelligence cases regarding national security would be lost, if poly couldn't be used.

Yes, imagine that horrendous number. How many would be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Oh my God, MILLIONS? Hey Zippy, in the course of human events, not one spy has ever been caught with the polygraph. So, you tell me, is zero equal to, greater than, or lesser than zero?

Go back to the drawing board Chuckles, you didn't crack the case wide open with this post.

[skeptic5]

You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees

[Seeker]

Posted by: skeptic5 Posted on: 10/31/02 at 23:55:19
You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees

Tsk...tsk....those who can't come up with any proof or logic are at a loss...they cannot comprehend the ease and ability to counter their nonsense within, at most, two minutes.  A lot of time on our hands?  No, that would be the polygraphers who are feeling the insecurity surrounding their jobs right now.  
Certainly in these most difficult economic times we can all appreciate the polygraphers overwhelming sense of fear over the very short time left for them to practice their voodoo.  I suppose they are all going to have to jump a plane to Israel, China, Africa, or one of the other countries where this pseudo-scientific fraud is practiced.  Is this a fair thing for those who have stolen the livelihoods of so many?  Is it fair for those who perpetuate a fraud?  I think so.

[beech trees]

You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees

I'm certain I wrote it faster than you read it.

Cheers,

Dave