FBI Polygraphed Nathan Johnson, Suspect/Informant in Possible Obama Assassination Plot

[George W. Maschke]

WCBS-TV reports that the FBI has conducted a polygraph interrogation of Nathan Johnson, who was arrested on Monday, 25 August 2008 along with Tharin Gartrell and Shawn Robert Adolf. From a detention facility, Johnson spoke with WCBS reporter Brian Maass:

http://wcbstv.com/video/?id=116567@wcbs.dayport.com&cid=48

The WCBS report does not mention the results of Johnson's polygraph examination.

While polygraph "testing" may be useful for getting admissions from naive and gullible suspects, it has no scientific basis, is inherently biased against the truthful, and yet easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures. It is to be hoped that the FBI and other agencies investigating this potential plot are not foolish enough to allow pseudoscientific polygraph results to guide their investigation.

[SanchoPanza]

People who read and post on this site would do well to remember that the founder of this web site co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.  
This justifiably calls his veracity into question on just about any issue.

People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

People who read and post on this site would do well to remember that the founder of this web site co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.  
This justifiably calls his veracity into question on just about any issue.

People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.

Sancho Panza

If George had a false positive on his polygraph, and that fueled his "crusade" as you put it, in my opinion is a great thing. That is how in OUR country we have historically righted wrongs. You may want to augment your extensive education and fancy talk with a simple history book read.
I and countless others that have been a victim of your silly box owe a debt of gratitude to people like George that take the time to fight for a just cause.
I have never seen where George has encouraged anyone to lie. In fact I have read posts from him telling people that ask how to lie and beat a poly that this site is not here to encourage lying.
Talk about taking statement out of context, your the king Sancho.
I have seen where he has shown how easily your "test" can be fooled.
Unfortunately, I didn't have this info because I felt I didn't need to have it I WAS BEING TRUTHFUL IN ALL MY ANSWERS.
I was also unaware at the time that polygraph was bias against the truthful in false positives.
And as for the fear mongering that you engage in, namely that George is somehow an enemy of our country because he dares to shed light on your scam shows the lows your ilk will go, to save your job. Most truly intelligent and now informed people will see through your non-sense.

[SanchoPanza]

The only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that  that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?

Sancho Panza

[T.M. Cullen]

People who read and post on this site would also do well to remember that the very existence of this web-site is a result of the founder's sour grapes over his inability to pass a polygraph examination for a position sensitive to national security. This disappointment ignited an ill conceived crusade conducted from outside the United States that attempts to conceal the aid he is trying to provide to criminals and enemies of the USA behind a spurious quest for justice.

Yeah, I'll bet even money that George is behind the National Research Council's report which concluded polygraph screening of employees does more harm than good.  

[T.M. Cullen]

The only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that  that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?

You have to fight fire with fire.  Polygraph interrogators lie all the time in an attempt to get information they can distort, and blow out of all proportion to disqualify an applicant, or ruin the career of an employee.

Lying to a con artist is not really lying.

Your whole post is example of the distortions perpetrated by polygraph examiners.  George wrote his book after being conned (like a lot of us here) during a polygraph.  He found out the same thing was happening to many others.  He researched the polygraph, saw what a sham it was, and put together an informative website so people could learn the con behind the polygraph and be better prepared.

TC

[Twoblock]

SanchoPanza

I have taken note of your capable ability to debate. So why are you parroting the likes NoLieGuy4u and Skip Webb in personal attacks on George? In my openion this deminishes your debates. It is very evident that polygraphers would like for this website to go away even though all of you say it is helping the polygraph industry. Personal attacks is not the way to do it. Don't you think that belittles your industry? Quoting and making factual statements wins debates.

In the past I have been guily of personal attacks in reaction to derogatory statements made to me. However, I am trying very hard to not lend credence to such trash.

[SanchoPanza]

I think it is a fair question to ask someone why they would believe someone who wrote a book that endorses lying is going to tell them the truth.

Mr. Cullen told us he believes that lying isn't lying depending on to whom you are lying. I find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects.

You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack on Dr. Mashcke when my comments concerning his book are true and verifiable from its contents.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck common sense indicates its probably a duck.

Do you believe that Dr. Mashcke  would be critical of polygraph if he had somehow managed to pass his test? Do you think his site would exist if he had somehow managed to pass his polygraph test?

Do you?

One of Dr. Mashcke's biggest supporters and noted polygraph opponent is former FBI Agent Drew Richardson. Mr. Richardson should be not only very familiar with sensitive National Security issues from his work at the FBI he should be as familiar if not more familiar wiith Dr. Mashcke than just about anyone here.

On at least 2 occasions I asked Mr. Richardson the following questions:
Based on everything you know about Dr. Mashcke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashcke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not? Think about it and be truthful.  

Mr. Richardson has never answered those questions. I can only presume that based on his other postings he certainly isn't worried about telling me something I may not agree with. That leaves me strongly suspecting that he doesn't want to hurt Dr. Mashcke's feelings by giving me a truthful response.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

The only proof that you have that George had a "False Positive" is Dr. Maschke's claim that it was a false positive. Since he did co-write a book that  that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie, why should he be believed just because he says his test was a false positive?

Sancho Panza

Sancho,
You seem to be ignoring the point.
Personally I don't care if Charles Manson discovered that Polygraph was a scam and uncovered it for all to see.
You keep dismissing everyones personal experiences because they cannot be proven to your satisfaction.
Truth is you have NO proof that polygraph has any effect in detecting deception.
The fact that some one may or may not lie is irrelevant when it comes to the validity of the polygraph and that is why this site exists.
The fact still remains that many experts have dismissed polygraphs ability to do anything when it comes to detecting deception and the 98% accuracy rate is a lie ( and a convenient on at that )
So go ahead and attack George if you must his work here is valid and is spreading the truth behind the "lie detector" a term BTW that is well accepted by the general public as a description of what it can do. However I have read numerous posts from your "crew" that say that it is not really a lie detector.
So who is lying?? and who is promoting lying?? Hmmm Sancho?

[notguilty1]

I think it is a fair question to ask someone why they would believe someone who wrote a book that endorses lying is going to tell them the truth.

Mr. Cullen told us he believes that lying isn't lying depending on to whom you are lying. I find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects.

You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack on Dr. Mashcke when my comments concerning his book are true and verifiable from its contents.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck common sense indicates its probably a duck.

Do you believe that Dr. Mashcke  would be critical of polygraph if he had somehow managed to pass his test? Do you think his site would exist if he had somehow managed to pass his polygraph test?

Do you?

One of Dr. Mashcke's biggest supporters and noted polygraph opponent is former FBI Agent Drew Richardson. Mr. Richardson should be not only very familiar with sensitive National Security issues from his work at the FBI he should be as familiar if not more familiar wiith Dr. Mashcke than just about anyone here.

On at least 2 occasions I asked Mr. Richardson the following questions:
Based on everything you know about Dr. Mashcke; if you were still with the FBI and you supervised an Agent with Mr. Mashcke's personality characteristics would you feel comfortable assigning him to your most sensitive investigations? Why? Why not? Think about it and be truthful.  

Mr. Richardson has never answered those questions. I can only presume that based on his other postings he certainly isn't worried about telling me something I may not agree with. That leaves me strongly suspecting that he doesn't want to hurt Dr. Mashcke's feelings by giving me a truthful response.

Sancho Panza

I cannot expect to guess what George or anyone else "would" do had thing gone differently.
I would like to think that he would have joined the ranks of experts in the field that found that polygraphs do not detect anything when it come to lies, and exposed it as he's done here. Just my humble opinion mind you.
Now better question is:
Does anyone think that Mr. Sancho or any of his cronies would be posting here if he didn't have to worry about the truth being told?
I THINK NOT!!
There have been many people that have stood up for truth regardless of personal gain.
Too bad Sancho you cannot be included in that group.

[Twoblock]

SanchoPanza

To answer your question - No I do not believe this site would exist had he rightfully passed his polygraph. In fact, I believe he has posted that it would not exist had he passed. What would be the reason. Who would raise hell for something good that happened to them. Trimarco failed him on every damn question. How many times have you seen this happen? Be completely truthful now. If you were the QC entity on this graph, would flunking every question raise a red flag? It should.

You seem to be insinuating that George went out of the country in order to teach criminals how to pass the poly. He was posting his experiences quite a while before this site existed and I believe his employment was in The Hague then. His stated purpose for this website, and I believe him, was to educate prospective LEOs about the polygraph. He cannot control who visits it.

NoLieGuy4U and Skip Webb have actually accused him of passing secrets to "Evil Iran". The difference between George and I is that I would have immediately, if not sooner, had their asses in federal court to prove their accusations.

I don't know about your questions to Dr Richardson, but I have been in touch with George (through emails and postings) for about ten years and will tell you flat out "I would trust Dr. George Maschke with a million dollars in gold to be delivered from point A to point B".

I have never met the man in person, but hope to have that honor some day.

[T.M. Cullen]

I find it interesting that someone with so little objection to lying would come to this site and parrot someone elses unsupportable claims about polygraph examiners lying to suspects.

Polygraphers DO lie.  The whole test is predicated on a lie.  Namely, convincing the the "mark" that the test is more accurate than it really is.  Intimidating them.  Telling them (like Mr. Lingenfelter at NSA) told me, that there is simply no way you can lie without the machine detecting it.  That is NOT TRUE, and he knows it!  
I have no problem with anyone who lies to a con artist who is purposely being dishonest in an attempt to trick them.  

FYI, an example of a  REAL lie would be Aldrich Ames answering "NO!" to a question about unauthorized foreign contacts.   You, as a polygrapher, should know this.  

TC

[Sergeant1107]

Sancho is engaging in a textbook ad hominem attack.

His original response did not deal with any of George's claims regarding the polygraph, it only attacked George's personal credibility.

The best way to handle such ad hominem attacks is to simply ignore them.

[SanchoPanza]

Sancho is engaging in a textbook ad hominem attack.

His original response did not deal with any of George's claims regarding the polygraph, it only attacked George's personal credibility.

The best way to handle such ad hominem attacks is to simply ignore them.

What do you mean by origional response? My original response to this site was directed to Dr. Mashcke:

After a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all  of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data.

If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT study?  

How is that an ad hominum attack?

If I were in fact engaging in ad hominum attack, which I'm not, it would be a fair response to the attacks upon me that have occurred on this board.

Pointing out the obvious conclusion that a person who writes a book justifying lying as well as trying to teach people how to lie successfully probably can't be trusted to tell the truth is a statement of reasonable linear determination. This isn't an unsupportable claim like those put forward by my opposition here, I can quote chapter and verse from Dr. Mashcke's own writings.

Pointing out that Notguilty1,Twoblock, etc should not only be questioning the veracity of the material they regurgitate, but its source , and why is not ad hominum attack.

Sancho Panza

[polytek]

Sancho is engaging in a textbook ad hominem attack.

His original response did not deal with any of George's claims regarding the polygraph, it only attacked George's personal credibility.

The best way to handle such ad hominem attacks is to simply ignore them.

What do you mean by origional response? My original response to this site was directed to Dr. Mashcke:

After a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all  of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data.

If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT study?  

How is that an ad hominum attack?

If I were in fact engaging in ad hominum attack, which I'm not, it would be a fair response to the attacks upon me that have occurred on this board.

Pointing out the obvious conclusion that a person who writes a book justifying lying as well as trying to teach people how to lie successfully probably can't be trusted to tell the truth is a statement of reasonable linear determination. This isn't an unsupportable claim like those put forward by my opposition here, I can quote chapter and verse from Dr. Mashcke's own writings.

Pointing out that Notguilty1,Twoblock, etc should not only be questioning the veracity of the material they regurgitate, but its source , and why is not ad hominum attack.

Sancho Panza

Oooh !!
2 Spelling errors
3 Grammattical errors

Horror Of Horrors.