Psychology's opinion of Polygraph

[SanchoPanza]

This is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."

SLANDER?
There is easily as much or more evidence that you were caught lying and cheating than you are able to produce that you were truthful and not cheating. Like I have said before the only evidence you have to support your contention that you "wrongly failed" and were "falsely accused of cheating "is the word of a man who endorses lying and cheating.  Do I really have to post all of those quotes again that prove you endorse lying and cheating? If you believed you had a slander action you could have pursued them against S A Jack Trimarco and Ervin Youngblood

Any wet behind the ears attorney could demolish your credibility on the witness stand without breaking a sweat based on your own written words.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker. The other day you were claiming that you

have never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination

. I explained to you  the difference between relevant questions and relevant issues. Now that you understand the difference you de facto acknowledge that you do in fact encourage people to lie to relevant issues by now very carefully stating that you have never encouraged anyone lie to "Relevant Questions". This allows you to continue to endorse lying to relevant issues and still maintain some semblance of denial.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

This is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."

SLANDER?

Yes, slander. In the sense of "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."

There is easily as much or more evidence that you were caught lying and cheating than you are able to produce that you were truthful and not cheating....

It's impossible to prove a negative.  I cannot prove that I'm not a spy. But neither can you. Neither can anyone. I cannot prove that I did not use countermeasures (even though I didn't know what they even were when I was accused of using them). But neither can any polygraph examinee.

Polygraphy is notoriously unreliable and false positives are common. So on the basis of precisely what evidence do you now publicly assert that I was "caught lying and cheating?"

If you believed you had a slander action you could have pursued them against S A Jack Trimarco and Ervin Youngblood.

While Messrs. Trimarco and Youngblood both reached conclusions that were completely wrong, unlike you, they did not publicly accuse me of anything.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker. The other day you were claiming that you

have never advised anyone to lie about relevant issues during the course of a polygraph examination

. I explained to you  the difference between relevant questions and relevant issues. Now that you understand the difference you de facto acknowledge that you do in fact encourage people to lie to relevant issues by now very carefully stating that you have never encouraged anyone lie to "Relevant Questions". This allows you to continue to endorse lying to relevant issues and still maintain some semblance of denial.

Relevant questions are about relevant issues. I've never advised anyone to lie with regard to either.

[SanchoPanza]

Yes, slander. In the sense of "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."

Malicious.? I for one would have never known that you were busted by S A Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood if you hadn't decided to disclose it to the world. I don't really understand how you could support a claim that anyone who repeats information that you disclosed to the world is acting maliciously.

False?? Well, you just admitted that you couldn't prove that it was false. I just choose to believe an FBI Special Agent and a Police Employee before I believe you. Neither of these men to my knowledge have ever failed a Polygraph, been accused of cheating on a polygraph, or co-written a book and published a web site which encourages lying and cheating and attempts to instruct people on techniques to allow them to pass a polygraph while lying. Both of these men had long term careers working for agencies where their credibility was subject to constant attack. You barely got started before you were determined to be unsuitable by the people tasked with making those decisions.  

Defamatory ??  Dr. Maschke the foundation for whatever fame or infamy you might enjoy stems from the opinions of S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood.  You should write them a thank you note and praise anyone who furthers your legend by repeating their opinions. You disclosed this information for the purpose of adding credence to your claims of poor treatment and to increase your name association with your cause. You can't really call the information you use to make yourself famous as defamatory. Well, you could, but most people would think it was a silly contention.

The final element of a slander in the legal sense is damage. Perfecting a damage claim regarding something you disclosed about yourself and occurring on a bulletin board where you control access would be somewhat problematic.

You accused the FBI of somehow revealing the results of your Polygraph to Mr. Youngblood which led him and his supervisor to accuse you of countermeasures. Like I said, if you had been slandered, you should have pursued it there.

You have repeatedly called me a liar yet you have absolutely no supporting information from anyone that I have ever lied to you. All I did was refuse to answer your question about where you could find a research paper.

You repeatedly side step the truth of the statement that there have been no scientific studies published or otherwise that both state that the countermeasures you endorse are undetectable AND use your book TLBTLD as a cited source for the procedures or techniques for producing undetectable countermeasures. You return to a quote from your book that does not answer the question. You try to use careful semantics to try to pretend that you don't encourage people to lie to relevant issues on polygraph examinations even though you know that all the questions on the test are relevant to the testing process. Even the ones that are not labeled "Relevant Questions" are by definition, relevant.

RELEVANT
Main Entry: rel·e·vant  
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-vənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up — more at relieve
Date: 1560
1 a: having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b: affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c: having social relevance
2: proportional , relative
relevant. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant

Sancho Panza

[getrealalready]

S.P.,

The meaningless gibberish in your last post is truly amazing, e.g.,

that you were busted by S A Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood  

What kind of yo-yo Dragnet lingo is this?  Dr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams, nothing more, and nothing less.  He was not caught; he was not busted.  

If you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination), you would have given an accurate report (no slander) and even be in agreement with the self-report of Dr. Maschke.  It is when you cross over into nonsensical characterizations that you slander.

Yeah--you know it's coming--get real already!

[T.M. Cullen]

Anonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.  But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.

TC

[pailryder]

getrealalready

I can speak only of the confession rate following polygraph examinations that I have personally conducted.  I have not observed any significant change in that rate since the launch of this site.

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

The only thing that you can take note of and report (now and twenty years ago) is the number of confessions obtained per number of polygraph examinations administered.  This is not the same thing as the considerably more meaningful number of confessions obtained per guilty subjects examined.  You don't have ground truth for the latter.  You no doubt have confirmation of the true status of only a small subset of the number of guilty subjects that you examined during a given period of time.

[T.M. Cullen]

I can speak only of the confession rate following polygraph examinations that I have personally conducted.  I have not observed any significant change in that rate since the launch of this site.

I wouldn't doubt that, given that most people come here looking for answers only AFTER being polygraphed.  They bought the popular myth that the polygraph is accurate, therefore are looking for an explanation of why they could have possibly failed having told the truth.

That won't change until the popular media picks up on the truth.  Popular culture is is always slow to change.  It takes at least a generation of two for popular beliefs to change.  In the meantime, open minded people can come here and get the real facts about the polygraph, whilst the masses get their info from Dr. Phil and Maury Povich.

TC

[SanchoPanza]

Anonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.

Mr. Cullen,  

First,  Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.


Second,  Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.

Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.

Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.

Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that

Dr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams

If you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination),you would have given an accurate report  

I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Anonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.

Mr. Cullen,  

First,  Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.


Second,  Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character.

Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side.

Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.

Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that

Dr. Maschke was found to be deceptive during two polygraph exams

If you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination),you would have given an accurate report  

I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be.

Sancho Panza

Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool
You crack me up Sancho!
Every day I look forward to reading what stupid statements you'll come up with and in true form you outdo yourself every day  

[SanchoPanza]

Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool  

Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool  

Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool  

Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.

Sancho Panza

 So.... In general if someone is not on your side they are fools.... just checking

[notguilty1]

Of course, anyone that is not on your side is a fool  

Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.

Sancho Panza

 So, hmmmm, In general, if someone is not on your side they are fools regardless of their personal or professional experiences or knowledge.... just checking

[getrealalready]

S.P.

I stand completely behind that which I wrote and which you in part referred to (partially quoted):  

If you had merely reported the truth (Dr. Maschke had been found to be deceptive on more than one polygraph examination), you would have given an accurate report (no slander) and even be in agreement with the self-report of Dr. Maschke.It is when you cross over into nonsensical characterizations that you slander.

Again, If you had merely reported that Dr. Maschke had been found deceptive on more than one polygraph, you would have agreed with his considerably earlier self-report on the matter.  You did not.  You engaged in childish slander.

I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters.  Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.