A Public Challenge to Frank Horvath

[Eastwood]

I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?  And give us some details about how you were mistreated?  And did you practice countermeasures on your tests as alleged by "poly cop"?  

[beech trees]

I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?  And give us some details about how you were mistreated?  And did you practice countermeasures on your tests as alleged by "poly cop"?  

I have a question for 'Eestwood'-- if you're so proud of your profession, why not post your true name? And give us some details about how you mislead and lie to your test subjects. And can you detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?

Dave

[G Scalabr]

Liar Liar: You know exactly what I'm saying - let's get some details and allow others to make some reasonable decisions rather than just hear how the poly "doesn't work".  

175 pages of details are available in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector .

Eastwood: I have a question for "beachtrees" - if you have been so maligned by the polygraph, why not post your true name?

What a joke. You are essentially shouting out the window of a glass house. It's sort of like how polygraphers feel that is acceptable for them to lie to those being "tested" but that it is not ethical for examinees to use countermeasures to protect themselves against erroneous results.

Can you spell 'hypocrite'?

[Eastwood]

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.  They could make a career on your admissions.
 

[beech trees]

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.  They could make a career on your admissions.

Eastwood,

 That's great news! Please pass along the information concerning the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge to those one hundred or so examiners, won't you? Thus far not one polygrapher has been man enough to put his reputation and his credibility on the line-- perhaps you'll have better luck.

Dave

[G Scalabr]

I know about a hundred polygraph examiners or so who would just love to test and interrogate you "anti's" here.

I'm sure you do... As "Beech Trees" said, why don't you let them know about the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge ? If you would like us to invite them personally, please forward their mailing addresses to info@antipolygraph.org.

They could make a career on your admissions.

Not likely. A 'grapher did everything but try to physically rough me up and he still couldn't make me talk (not that there was anything to admit)--and this was before I had ever researched polygraphy.

As every interrogator knows, one of the cardinal rules of interrogation is not to make an untrue statement of fact to a person being interrogated if there is a chance that the person may realize that you are being deceptive. For example, if a suspect was the getaway car driver in a bank robbery, the last thing a good interrogator wants to do is say to him "we have ten witnesses that saw you in the vault." At this point, the suspect knows that the interviewer actually has very little and is essentially grabbing at straws. Additionally, he knows that trickery is afoot and is very likely to be less than co-operative at this point.

Every polygraph examiner facing someone who has read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is immediately put into this unenviable position as an interviewer. Good luck getting a peep out of those readers with even a modicum of intelligence.

[George W. Maschke]

Yesterday, I sent Deseret News correspondent Joe Bauman the following e-mail:

Dear Mr. Bauman,

Has the Deseret News published a correction?

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

Today he wrote back:

Dear George, I wanted to get back to you with what we decided. I talked over your questions with my editor, Chuck Gates, and also with Prof. Horvath (by e-mail and fax). We have decided that no further action is required. Thanks very much for your contact and for raising some interesting questions. Best wishes, Joe

Can you believe it?!

[George W. Maschke]

On Thursday, 27 June, I e-mailed the following question to Joe Bauman:
 

Dear Joe,

Thanks for writing back. I'm puzzled by your decision, though. Do you believe that the description of comparison/control questions in your article was true and accurate? What did Dr. Horvath tell you?

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

I have not yet received any response. It appears that the Deseret News, having been made aware of the error in its reporting, has made a conscious editorial decision not to expose the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing."

If you share my concerns about the Deseret News' journalistic standards, you might also care to send a note of inquiry to reporter Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> and Deseret News editor Chuck Gates <chuck@desnews.com>.

[the boys]

Oh Heavens no!!!.....okay, everybody out there....especially you "newsies"....we are only going to say this once......if you write anything publicly that differs in any fashion with that which the antipolygraph.org family writes, then you will be branded a conspirator with those mean, nasty polygraph folks....and God help you if you refuse to climb on their bandwagon....Hey George, does this mean that Scott Pelley and some of the folks from the national networks/newspapers who refused to get embroiled in your "ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough) arguments and give you a unending soapbox for your pointless arguments have now slipped to the "other side"  

[G Scalabr]

The boys,

"ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough)

We use the word because it describes precisely the arguments most often advanced by the polygraphers who post on this site.

Instead of your usual vacuous posts, perhaps a better way to go would be to tell us if you "boys" agree with this quote from the article:

The tests record physiological responses to questions. The queries usually cover both a crime under investigation and matters that are irrelevant or simply technical such as: Is today Friday? Responses to these comparison questions are checked against responses to relevant questions.

Are questions like "Is today Friday?" used as comparison questions to check against relevant questions? Or, did the information in the article serve to perpetuate public misperceptions on polygraphy? Was George correct when he pointed out that the article contains an error? Tell the truth now.

Hey George, does this mean that Scott Pelley and some of the folks from the national networks/newspapers who refused to get embroiled in your "ad hominem" (kind a neat word I think...you and your cronies sure use it enough) arguments and give you a unending soapbox for your pointless arguments have now slipped to the "other side"

If you feel that Scott Pelley's "Final Exam" piece on 60 Minutes came out in support of polygraphy, you are truly delusional.

[beech trees]

Oh Heavens no!!!.....okay, everybody out there....especially you "newsies"....we are only going to say this once......if you write anything publicly that differs in any fashion with that which the antipolygraph.org family writes, then you will be branded a conspirator with those mean, nasty polygraph folks....

Even if that were so (which it certainly is not), such a branding would be infinitely better than having the opposition's posts deleted from the bulletin board, as is the case 100% of the time in a pro-polygraph website.

You were wrong about Dr. Richardson's credentials, you were wrong about his administering polygraph interrogations, and you're wrong now.

Again, quite a curious thing, you referring to yourself in the plural.

[the boys]

Sorry,we missed that thing about "he who refers to himself as royalty". Please explain.

We will make you a deal. Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics? ;)We could be wrong, but it seems to us that Georgie already admited that he placed that moniker on Drew. You have skirted the question long enough. Your readng public wants to know! If we are wrong, then we will graciously admit it, but we are not are we Drew?

And Gino, mia pizano! Don't get so rattled. This is an exchange ideas and comments.  It isn't healthy to lose your temper. We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it!

[Mark Mallah]

Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics?

Before George and/or Drew states Drew's credentials, which I know qualify him as a polygraph expert (for a sneak preview, he not only graduated from the FBI's polygraph school at the Department of Defense, which polygraphers seem to think qualifies them as experts, the man has a PhD in cardiovascular physiology and completed his doctoral dissertation on a polygraph related topic; I'll let him fill in the details if he so chooses), it is not necessary to have administered any polygraphs to judge whether the polygraph is a valid test or not.  That inquiry is more of a statistical analysis.

For example, an individual can judge the success rate of heart transplants without having performed any heart transplants.  An individual can judge the safety record of, say, American Airlines without being a pilot.  And I might add that polygraphers feel quite free to comment on the validity (or lack thereof) of voice stress analysis without having adminstered a voice stress test themselves.

[George W. Maschke]

the boys,

Sorry,we missed that thing about "he who refers to himself as royalty". Please explain.

The reference was to your use of the plural to refer to yourself.

We will make you a deal. Let's ask Drew Richardson himself if he is or ever was the "top FBI polygaph expert"; and in what category; research, operations,or that old buggaboo ethics? We could be wrong, but it seems to us that Georgie already admited that he placed that moniker on Drew. You have skirted the question long enough. Your readng public wants to know! If we are wrong, then we will graciously admit it, but we are not are we Drew?

We've discussed Dr. Richardson's credentials at length in the message thread devoted to his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge, which you (and the rest of the polygraph community) evidently lack the self-confidence to accept.

And Gino, mia pizano! Don't get so rattled. This is an exchange ideas and comments.  It isn't healthy to lose your temper. We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it!

Nothing in Gino's latest response to you suggests that he is "rattled." But your childish taunts suggest that perhaps you are? Why not respond directly to this relevant question that Gino put to you (and that you so artlessly dodged):

"Are questions like "Is today Friday?" used as comparison questions to check against relevant questions? Or, did the information in the article serve to perpetuate public misperceptions on polygraphy? Was George correct when he pointed out that the article contains an error? Tell the truth now."

[George W. Maschke]

the boys,

Your following statement:

We may not agree with you, but we will defend to the death your right to say it!

reminds me of something yet another American Polygraph Association past president, Don Weinstein, wrote to me in the message thread, LAPD Dropping Requirement to Pass Polygraph? Mr. Weinstein wrote:

You certainly have the right to state your beliefs, and I will defend to the death, your right to state them.

(Could defender-to-the-death-of-the-right-to-free-speech Don Weinstein be masquerading as "the boys?")

In any event, Mr. Weinstein then proceded to accuse me of deliberately misleading people and lying about the LAPD's polygraph policy, adding, "I doubt seriously if you will permit this posting to be shown to your readers." Of course, we don't censor the views posted to the AntiPolygraph.org message board, in contrast to the moderators of the (presently malfunctioning) pro-polygraph PolygraphPlace.co
m message board, who seem not to share Mr. Weinstein's and "the boys'" commitment to free speech.

Interestingly, free speech devotee Don Weinstein chose not to respond when it was pointed out that his accusations against me were without merit. (See Gino Scalabrini's post, A Message to Former APA President Don Weinstein.) Strange behavior for a past president of an organization that purports to be "dedicated to truth."