A Polygraph Failure

[George W. Maschke]

Batman,

You write:

George,

Again thanks for the answers, but I do find one thing a bit puzzling. ?If you had passed your polygraph and accepted a position, with the FBI I believe, would there have ever been an Anti- polygraph.org, or would you have simply pressed on within the FBI?

Batman

Had I passed my FBI polygraph examination, I suppose I would have have continued, as before, to have little interest in polygraphy. It was the Kafkaesque experience of being falsely accused of having disclosed classified information to unauthorized persons and having had contacts with a foreign intelligence service that first prompted me to research polygraphy and discover that it is a pseudoscientific fraud. And it was the realization, years later, that many others have been -- and continue to be -- falsely accused that prompted me take a public stance against it.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that those falsely accused by polygraphers are working to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. I make no apology for that.

[J.B. McCloughan]

Twoblock,

Could you please define the conditions of the following.

I challange all of you propoly's to answer those questions about polygraphing elected and appointed officials.

If it is for general screening, my answer will stand as it has always.

As for your other questions, I think I have answered all but one through my previous posts here.

[Batman (Guest)]

George, George, George,

You, better than anyone, should know when words and answers are crafted for a self-serving advantage.

TwoGoofy was the first person. that I recall, to directly ask me if I was a Polygraph examiner.  When he asked, I answered.

"Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy? ?Again, an erroneous assumption on your part."  My words exactly.  I do not believe polygraph to be a pseudo scientific fraud.

"I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph.  Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?"  My words, exacty.  I have been in law enforcement since '78, and have the experience I speak of.  I then asked the question.

"I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.  I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life. ?Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations. ?Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance. ?Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue. ?Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill. ?Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!"  Yup, I said it.  I do take offense to being referred to as a "tester".  Just a personal thing.

Anyway, gotta go.  Didn't lie, wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent!   Just answered questions and made statements much like many others who visit this site and claim to be so rightous.

Batman's gotta call (Bathroom call that is).

Batman  

[beech trees]

Looks like 'ol Batman studied well at the Bill Clinton School of Honesty.

We all know his definition of 'is' now.

[Batman (Guest)]

Come on Peach Tree, you can do better than that.

A clown like you knows how the game is played.  You do a good job of taking your own quotes and redefining them when the cheese gets a bit binding.  It's kinda like when George uses the term "naive".

If you want to know the right answer, ask the right question dufuss.  That's one of the first rules of a good polygraph examination.  Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no such thing as a good polygraph examination according to you, BlockHead, and others.

One other thing, Bill Clinton doesn't have a school of honesty, you should know that!  Actually, I'm more a Rush fan myself.  You wouldn't be a Democrat would ya?  Voted for Al Gore, cried like a baby while claiming he got robbed.  It would fit your profile.  Oh, did I say that, profile?  Damn, another one of those BS Law Enforcement concepts.  They just keep sneaking out.

Well Peachy, you just go and have yourself a fine polygraph day.  By the way, you going to seek out that counseling I suggested?  Also, what about that service to your country question, you red, white, and blue bleeder you?  Does your patriotism really run deep, or do you just pull it out when accusing others of being despots, petty tyrants, and good German soldiers?  

By the way jerk-off, don't formulate opinions on how one would does his or her job based on what they post on this site.  God, if that were the case, some would assume that you carry a gun to your job at the post office every day.  As for me, I would venture to say that you are very competent at what you do, and well thought of in the work place.  It's just that when your fingers start dancing across that keyboard, the jerk in you pushes to the top.  It happens, so don't worry about it.

TwoDumb, I answered your challenge, got any others Einstein?

Batman
(Or Asswipe to Peachy, I did laugh when I read that, thanks!)

[Twoblock]

J. B.

Good to see you back. As well as I remember your posts, you do debate the issues.

What I meant by polygraphing government officials is: That they should have to be subjected to the same rigorous background check, including polygraphy, as do the prospective hires for the FBI, CIA, etc. Polygraph questions should include those stated in the open letter in the reading room of this site.

The definition of a politician is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". A lot of this back scratching is so deep (defense cantracts, medical, pharmaceutical, etc.) it causes bleeding. The blood is from us taxpayers. I don't believe LE is doing their jobs if they don't go after these highdollar crooks with the same vigor as they do the street crooks. If government corruption could be curtailed, the budget would have a surplus always.

[beech trees]

Come on Peach Tree, you can do better than that.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmno, that one was pretty good. In fact I know it stung, as the length of your retorts is directly related to how deeply I affected you. Judging by this next verbose spewage, I got you good little man.

A clown like you knows how the game is played.  You do a good job of taking your own quotes and redefining them when the cheese gets a bit binding.  It's kinda like when George uses the term "naive".

No, not really. My illustration is much closer to the mark. There's no difference between your petty little word games that you used PRECISELY to give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you and the cited example of Bill Clinton giving perjurious testimony. I bet you even had the same smug little smile on your face as the Slickster had, didn't you?

If you want to know the right answer, ask the right question dufuss.

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." -Bill Clinton

That's one of the first rules of a good polygraph examination.  Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no such thing as a good polygraph examination according to you, BlockHead, and others.

If by 'others', you actually mean The National Academy of Sciences, Congress, 99% of the US Court systems, the American Medical Association, etc..... then yes, you're correct.

One other thing, Bill Clinton doesn't have a school of honesty, you should know that!

I see the concept of 'dramatic irony' is lost on you. Oh well, judging from my Instant Messages, many others thought it was a hoot.

Actually, I'm more a Rush fan myself.  You wouldn't be a Democrat would ya?

No, but you're not the first dim-witted polygrapher or polygrapher apologist who has sought to quickly dismiss what I have to say by blindly compartmentalizing me into a demographic they despise (on these boards, there sure seems to be a lot of Democrat hating going on). Such is the way of a small-minded man. When asked to defend their position, they are caught off-balance and seek to hate and villify the opposition rather than actually defend their profession. "Ooo, I don't like what he's saying, he must be one of them Democrats!"

Democrats and Republican alike in Congress refused to be polygraphed. I wonder why?

Voted for Al Gore, cried like a baby while claiming he got robbed.  It would fit your profile.  Oh, did I say that, profile?  Damn, another one of those BS Law Enforcement concepts.  They just keep sneaking out.

You might want to ask for a tuition refund from the Keystone Police Akademy. I bet you were one of the expert profilers running around looking for an angry white mid-30's Southerner carrying an M-16, weren't you?

Also, what about that service to your country question, you red, white, and blue bleeder you?  Does your patriotism really run deep, or do you just pull it out when accusing others of being despots, petty tyrants, and good German soldiers?

An interesting question. It's not the right question though, so try again dufus.  

batman then pontificates:

By the way jerk-off, don't formulate opinions on how one would does his or her job based on what they post on this site.

He then fails to take his own just-recently dispensed edict and writes:

As for me, I would venture to say that you are very competent at what you do, and well thought of in the work place.  It's just that when your fingers start dancing across that keyboard, the jerk in you pushes to the top.  It happens, so don't worry about it.

If you can't hang when the questions start hurting, you always have a little hook-rug on the porch, parser.

[Batman (Guest)]

Hey Pecker-Head, you wanna step outside?

Beech, do you hate me because I administer polygraph examinations, or because I don't agree with George, or simply because I don't take all this crap as serious as you?

That's your problem, or more accurately, one of your problems.  You think that everyone who posts here takes this stuff as serious as you do, therefore you swing first, ask questions later.

You say you want to have an intellectual debate about polygraph, however it is evident that nothing will change your point of view, so what's the point in debating.  All you want to do is charge at the fence, so I chose to stand outside the fence and poke you with a stick.  

As for the recent murders in the DC area, well, until you get out on the streets, or sit down in a room with someone the likes of those two, maybe you should simply hold fire!  Looking at things from the safety of your little computer room really does not qualify your to pass judgement.

On a lighter note, you're a jerk!

Batman

[Skeptic]

George, George, George,

You, better than anyone, should know when words and answers are crafted for a self-serving advantage.

Batman,
You were knowingly misleading people with your answers.  You know it and so do your readers.

It comes as no surprise to me, however, that a polygrapher would have such a casual relationship with the truth.

You know, Batman, I take it back.  You haven't made the dialogue here go downhill.  All you do is play games, and contribute nothing to the subject(s) at hand.  Frankly, I find your posts largely irrelevant.

Skeptic

[Batman (Guest)]

Who rattled your cage Septic?

Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations.  Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading.  I was never asked.  Everyone just jumped to that conclusion.  I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it.  However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly.  

Exactly what do you guys want?  In my past posts I have mentioned the weaknesses of polygraph, I have admitted it is not a perfect tool or technique.  It may very well be that any scientific validity attached to it is questionable, but regardless of what you think or want to admit, it works.  In my 18 years of administering polygraph examinations in support of criminal investigations, I have assisted in identifying countless individuals involved in criminal activity, and I have assisted in exonerating an equal if not greater number alleged to have committed criminal acts.  In no instance has polygraph alone been the single factor that either led to a conviction or exonerated someone.  It was simply a tool that assisted in the overall investigation.

That, George is what I mean when I talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Simply because polygraph is either misused or has serious flaws as a "screening tool", you want to chuck it all.  You folks refuse to acknowledge, even in the slightest way, that it does have some merit, some utility.  You label all polygraph examiners as evil doers, all confessions as coerced, and all polygraph successes as the result of "naive" individuals who were too stupid to know better than to confess.

So what is there to debate?  What purpose would it serve to have "intelligent" discussions with you folks?  You are zealots.  You refuse to budge off your positions, even the slightest degree.  You simply want to attack everything and everyone remotely associated with the use of polygraph.  Well, have at it.  As you sit back and scream and yell about the injustice of it all, I'll simply go back into the room, and administer a fair and impartial examination in an attempt to assist an investigation to the best of my ability.  It doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone else.  It doesn't make me a petty tyrant, or a good German soldier simply following orders.  It makes me someone who is doing his job, in as professional a manner as possible.  We are not all asswipes, or shitbags, or fascists.

Batman

PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won't keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site.  Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them.  Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise), and BeechTrees (possibly he's the Penguin).

[Anonymous]

Batman,

And just as you claim not to have intentionally and knowingly misled anyone on this site regarding your profession, I suppose you claim not to have misled examinees about the nature and purpose of control questions for the last eighteen years too, yes??  Right...go tell it to Batboy, hero.  Is there any wonder you and your colleagues have zero credibility??  

[Batman (Guest)]

Good God, this is exactly what I mean when talking about dealing with zealots.

Anonymous, are as blind as you are stupid?  Read my last post again.  Here, I'll make it easy for you.  I said, "Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations.  Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading.  I was never asked.  Everyone just jumped to that conclusion.  I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it.  However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly."  

How much clearer can I possibly be?  I used the words knowingly and deliberately, what more do you want?

As for "control" questions, well, just how pissed off do you get at the dentist when he says this will only hurt a little bit?  Even though it hurts like a bitch, he gets the job done!  Am I supposed to feel guilty when I administer an exam with NDI results that helps to exonerate some young kid on a rape allegation, simply because of how I introduced the "control" questions?  Gee, I'll take that one to the confessional with me so as to clear my path to heaven.

As for credibility, I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder.  My credibility is in good stead with those that count most.

(Yeah, a bunch of low life polygraph examiners!)  Beat you to it bud.

George, are these the folks you really want to align yourself with in your battle against, sorry, I mean for justice?

Batman

PS: Any way you can get that picture of Clinton off this thread?  Every time I scroll through he passes by like a bad dream.

[polylawman]

Wasn't you issue with drugs george?? Isn't that what kept you out of the Bureau?
Be honest.

[mriddle6]

Who rattled your cage Septic?

Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled"

PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won't keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site.  Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them.  Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise),  

I swear to God I'm not George. You want I should take a polygraph maybe?  

[mriddle6]

Wasn't your issue with drugs george?? Isn't that what kept you out of the Bureau?
Be honest.

The issue as I see it is George felt victimized. It also appears, being unable to discredit the message, that your going after the messenger.

Judging by the attacks, it suggests that the polygraph community is beginning to feel the effects of this site. And I believe it was DR, Richardson who has stated " You can't keep on telling people that they are lying when the polygraph has no validity and everybody knows that, you can't keep up a bluff like that for long." Why not attack this messenger? Better yet why not take up his challenge?