Batman wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 1:56pm:


I think you've just summed things up nicely, Batman.  You find all of this hard to believe.  Perhaps you are sheltered from the effects of your work, or the practices of other agencies.  Nontheless, it does happen and as numerous people here can attest, it continues to happen.

Imagine if it were you who were falsely found "DI" on a polygraph, with no effort at corroboration of the findings and no means to vindicate yourself.  Imagine if your lifelong career aspirations were canceled because of it, and that your chances with other agencies were adversely impacted, as well.  Would you accept someone's advice to simply "get over it"?

Skeptic

Batman wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 1:56pm:


Riddle me this Batman, how can the FBI let a known spy back on the street?

You would think that they would act upon someone they have deemed to be a spy, now, wouldn't you? I prayed that the FBI would take their allegations seriously and INVESTIGATE, but they don't.  But yes, I was clearly accused of espionage.  As I did with polylawman, I will direct you to my personal statement posted here on this site.  You can see how the FBI came to the conclusiuon that I was a spy.  

I, too, am puzzled as to why there is no investigation.  What if I really was a spy, a bad one, worse than Hanssen or Ames?  And 10 years form now, I am uncovered.  What then?  Won't the FBI look stupid for finding me and letting me go?  

Almost makes me wish I were a spy.  Almost . . .

Quote:


Unfotunately, the FBI believes that the polygraph is an accurate, effective, tool.  And the polygrapher is infallable.  He becomes judge, jury, and executioner on an applicant's chances at the FBI, and subsequently any other government agency.  I call the polygrapher "deranged" only because he is the only person who can believe in such methods of screening applicants as "effective."  (I guess by that definition, polylawman is deranged as well -- interesting).

I know you "find it hard to believe" that this is how the system works, but believe me, Batman, if you got wrapped up in the situatiuon like I have been, you would be pretty passionate about it, too.

Chris

Dear polylawman,

Sorry for taking a while to get back at you, but I missed your inappropriate one liner.  In case you haven't read it, I encourage you to read my story.  It can be found on the personal statements page of this site.  Since you are so small minded, it's the one marked "Christopher J. Stein," as I know it must be difficult for a person of your miniscule intellect to infer my real name form my screen name of "steincj."

If after reading my statement, you still feel I am an "unqualified candidate," then I hope you do post a message saying so.  This way all of the sane people reading this site will personally witness your ludicrous postings.

Chris 
a.k.a.
Christopher J. Stein

Quote:


The problem here is a classic one of context.  What we have hear is a fairly open forum where a wide range of people, with their bias and background coloring their interpretations of others. I suspect there is a lot less actual malfeasance than either side believes.

We have:

1. People who have been falsely accused, mostly in polygraph screens, who are draw here because of the rather deep hurt that is caused. This is especially true when people have been enthusiastic about careers in LE or possibly a spook agency. Most of these are people oriented to serving others and are quite idealistic. What others think of them, especially regarding integrity, is extremely important. The decptive way in which the polygraph is utilized just inflames these people more.

2. Then you have the polygraphers. They often encounter people who are clearly deceptive (by transparent confession), about important issues. This reinforces the belief in the polygraph so that with highly responding people there is a greater tendency to conclude the person is deceptive rather than just reacting to accusations. People that use the polygraph for investigative purposes likely see it's value in the contect of other "fuzzy" investigative tools, such as eyewitness accounts, or simply self serving testimony. In these areas anything that works even part of the time becomes one more tool amongst many.

Thus each side sees the other with a jaundiced eye.

-Marty

Batman wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 1:56pm:

Batman,

I am upset because you are attacking me on semantics not my ideas.  I have tried to make sure after a few postings that I made earlier which attacked grammar, writing syle, or spelling, that I focus on the understanding of ideas and remember that I make many mistakes in spelling or grammar not because I do not know better but because I have limited time like everyone else on this site and I type as quickly as possible.  I have not made a single comment beyond that point attacking spelling, style, or grammar of any poster.  I strive to understand the idea being presented.  I presented the idea that in the FBI at this time, there exist the possibility that the paper strips can be omitted, lost, or destroyed because there is no chain of custody which I presented in my post and Marty agreed that it was a possibility.  

I do not want to start getting into "definitions" but in this case my word "observations" means "comment or remark."    I did not mean to infer that in this case that my "observations" meant "the fact of being observed."  I did try to clarify that with "my disclaimer."  Both of these meanings are given to the word "observation" in "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language". Batman, I do not want to start playing any "word" games with you.  There is enough of that crap going on in this world.  I want to talk about ideas.

I clearly did not try to deceive any reasonable reader that it was anything but conjecture.

The reason that I even brought this posting into this thread was through a direct question posed to me by Marty who I have a long time running discussion pertaining to countermeasures and polygraphing a polygraph examiner.

I will use private communication with him next time.

I have edited the post in question to reflect clarity of usage.  

To any other readers of these posts, I stand corrected by Batman on my poor usage of the word "observation".

Fair Chance,

Why so upset?  I was simply asking you about what you stated to be your "observations".  You did not preface this with any sort of hypotheticals or qualifiers.  You said it was an observation.  That would lead any reader to believe you have had some sort of actual hands-on or personal experience in order to be able to make such an observation.

As for what the FBI does, I am fully aware they use the older Lafayette analog instruments.  That is why I worded my post, "very few, if any, federal agencies utilize the analog instruments", leaving the door open, as I did not feel it was my place to openly identify which agencies utilized what type of equipment, and my knowledge of their instrumentation is dated a few years so I thought it possible they may have changed to digital instruments since then. 

You stated, "I know how the FBI does theirs and you should investigate for yourself before accusing me of giving false testimony on this website regarding the FBI polygraphs."  What did I accuse you of?  I was simply asking you to provide additional information because your "hypothetical" example of unethical behavior certainly was detailed enough to lead one to believe you may have actually observed same.  You coupled your description of destroying charts in the same paragraph that led off "As far as testing other polygraph examiners, my observation is...” Of course that was the lead sentence and it may have dealt only with what that one particular sentence was talking about, however when it was the lead to the paragraph it could allow the reader to believe that what you referred to in the rest of the paragraph, "...that they try and choose a more reactive question about specific incidents in their past which will allow a better reaction on control questions.  As human nature goes, if I wanted to test someone, I would just keep running strips until random chance gives me acceptable strips and destroy the rest of the results.  I strongly doubt that the strips themselves are electronically encrypted and numbered (such as court evidence video tapes from banks) so this would be an easy process to do without anyone's knowledge.” was based on some sort of personal observation.

Regarding your challenge to me to provide you a list of FBI field offices that utlize anything other than analog instruments, I do not have access to such information.  My dated knowledge that they still utilize analog instruments comes from personal contact with that agency, but not such that I would be able to provide the information you request of me.  However, I am curious as to exactly how did the FBI became the focus here.  Howard W., who started this thread, never mentioned any particular agency, he simply stated he had taken a polygraph exam ad was being asked to undergo additional testing.  As a matter of fact he specifically stated it was a "PD" that he was dealing with.  Fair Chance, you are the one, in your reply to him, that brought the FBI into it.  In your post that I replied to you did not make any mention that it was the FBI you were referring to as using analog instruments and obtaining "strips".  In fact, you did not mention any specific agency in that particular post.

I apologize for not including your disclaimer, "I am not suggesting that any polygraph operator does this and this is speculation on your questions and ideas.  I believe it is a possibility.” in my reply to your post.  I simply find these type disclaimers to serve no useful purpose.  It seems to be vogue for folks to make pseudo accusations, under "hypothetical" circumstances, then add one little disclaimer, such as yours.

As for quoting the entire context of your post, I quoted those portions I needed clarification on.

As for the state of your mind's openness, I can not comment.  I can only make an "observation".  It appears you may already be somewhat closed-minded when it comes to the issue of polygraph utilization.  I may have simply provided you with the opportunity to state this openly as a reply to a perceived slight by me.

FOR STEINCJ: 

If you were actually accused of engaging in espionage as you state, you most likely would not be afforded the opportunity to be out and about posting on sites such as this, or any others.   

If you allowed your career aspirations to be ruined by someone you classify as a, "Deranged Polygrapher", then you either need to bolster your confidence a bit, or aim in a different direction.  I find it hard to believe that one "deranged" individual could "ruin" the career aspirations of someone such as you, a "Innocent, truthful applicant."

Batman

    

Quote:


No Fair_Chance. I interpreted your comments as conjecture and opinion where they were not direct observation.  I noticed your experience was with strip chart analog style recorders too.  It's likely that funding for polygraphs simply isn't enough to justify newer machines. So called computer scored machines, which would be prime candidates for the technology referred to by polycop, perhaps just haven't made their way into the FBI yet. I haven't seen reference to the sort of data logging lock down that he mentioned though it would certainly be simple to do.  It may simply be an unwanted feature.


On another note, I have been kicking around ideas for detecting countermeasures. The key is establishing baselines. It has the same problem as divining deception though I suspect that CM's (aside from mental CM's) have a high probability of producing distinct signatures - though not distinct ones in current equipment limited sensing channels.

Maybe I should chat with Drew about some ideas I have in this area.

-Marty

Marty wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 3:58am:

Dear Marty,

Forgive my latest outburst to Batman but I try to be accurate and open minded with my postings.  As of December 15, 2002, I would like to see Batman give me a list of any FBI Field offices which use anything but paper strip machines.

Marty, when you read my answer to your question, did you perceive that I represented any of my views as known fact?  I believe that I tried to clearly state that they were my opinion of possibilities and I represented them as such.

When I am asked to give a urine test, I must sign the evidence bottle after it is sealed and thus ensuring a chain of custody with my initials on it.  I have never signed one polygraph strip to evidence that it was actually my strip which was taken.  I have never signed that "x" amount of strips where taken during my hours of testing.  The current system is subject to tampering in the FBI.  Strips can be omitted in the current system.  I am only observing the possibilities and many lawyers have precluded the admission of evidence based on the same arguments.

Have I misrepresented ideas as facts to you, Marty?

Regards.  

Batman wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 12:53am:

Dear Batman,

I did not state that any of my assumptions were fact or what really what on.  Marty asked me hypothetical questions and I did my best to give him some hypothetical answers.  My answers were the type that Tom Clancy uses in his novels.  No one can be sure that they did not happen or happened because it is just a "guess."  I tried to make that clear in my answer to Marty who I know does not take anything on face value and will put it into consideration with many other postings that he has observed on this site.  I would ask Marty to respond to this posting as to his understanding of what I stated.

Breeze and yourself might be quantum leaps ahead of the federal system for the following reasons which I know are factual:

1.)  The FBI does not videotape any polygraph prescreening applications.

2.)  The FBI does not use encrypted types of recording images (just the old fashioned paper machines).  

BATMAN, ITS HAS HAPPENED, ITS HAPPENING, AND ITS "GUNNA HAPPEN" TOMORROW.  PLEASE CHECK YOUR SOURCES IN THE FBI BECAUSE I JUST WENT THROUGH IT AND I HAVE NEVER POSTED ANYTHING AS FACT ON THIS WEBSITE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN!  THE PAPER STRIPS ARE NOT REGISTERED, RECORDED, OR OTHERWISE LOGGED SEQUENTIALLY SUCH AS HAPPENS IN PROPERLY CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES.  THE INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO DELETION, OMMISSION, AND SUBVERSION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE INSTRUMENT.

3.)  The FBI does not do any investigation before the polygraph and will not do any investigation to confirm negative findings of the polygraph.  THIS IS FACT AND I JUST WENT THROUGH IT!

Batman,  I will be respectful of your questions and quotes as always.  I have never made any statements regarding how your state or other system does polygraphs but I can assure you that I know how the FBI does theirs and you should investigate for yourself before accusing me of giving false testimony on this website regarding the FBI polygraphs.

If I intoned that polygraphs do unethical actions as fact in anyway, I retract any such suppostions.  I believe that my last statments in my posting in which you choose to omit stated as such:

"I am not suggesting that any polygraph operator does this and this is speculation on your questions and ideas.  I believe it is a possibility."

You did not quote the entire context of my posting.  I tried to keep an open mind to your thinking but you close your mind to mine.  

I am now closing my mind to your way of thinking because you seem to have made your mind up as to how I think.

No Regards.

Unqualified applicant removed from the process. (FACT)

FBI Pre-employment Polygraph given to me on October 3 and 4, 2002  in Denver, CO (fact)

Administered by SA Bill Irwin (fact)

Analog machine recording onto strips (fact)

Deranged Polygrapher (opinion, but most likely fact)

Innocent, truthful applicant accused of espionage (fact)

Career aspirations ruined (fact)

Chris

Batman wrote on Dec 14^th, 2002 at 12:53am:


Glad to know you guys "no can do anymore"  -  Not that anyone ever did

Interesting, and makes sense. For about the last 10 years designing that sort of mechanically intense instrumentation actually costs more than using modern techniques. Generally what is done in modern designs is to produce printouts that mimic the older strip chart recorders. This makes it easier for persons to work with what they are used to. The total information flow in polygraphs is probably well under  100 bits/s and even with poor compression storing 200 or so bits/s is essentially free. Of course this would go up a lot if audio was recorded (let alone video).  Still, these days both of these are fairly cheap.

Fair_Chance, I gather that your tests were done with conventional strip chart machines.

-Marty

Fair Chance,

You stated the following,

"As far as testing other polygraph examiners, my observation is that they try and choose a more reactive question about specific incidents in their past which will allow a better reaction on control questions.  As human nature goes,  if I wanted to test someone, I would just keep running strips until random chance gives me acceptable strips and destroy the rest of the results.  I strongly doubt that the strips themselves are electronically encrypted and numbered (such as court evidence video tapes from banks) so this would be an easy process to do without anyone's knowledge."

Would you elaborate on how you obtained your "observations"?
Is this from personal experience, having been told this by polygraph examiners, personally observing polygraph examinations administered to polygraph examiners?

Also, when you talk about "human nature", what do you mean?
You mention in in the context of unethical conduct.

Lastly, "strips"?  I assume you mean charts, however very few, if any, federal agencies utilize the analog instruments anymore, and I believe most state and local law enforcement agencies have stopped using them too.  We have progressed, kicking and screaming, into the computer age.  A lot of positive things have come from this progression.  One of these is the elimination of the possibility of administering "charts" that are then "destroyed".  No can do anymore.  All askings of questions are now "locked" in as original data and can not be deleted.  Of course, if an exmainer is not subjected to any higher level of quality control he/she can behave in all sorts of unethical behavior regardless of the built in safeguards to prevent same.  In all federal agencies, polygraph examinations are subjected to a fairly strict Q/C process so your suggestion of running charts until obtaining the ones you want and destroying others just ain't gunna happen at this level. 

Batman

Marty wrote on Dec 13^th, 2002 at 9:17am:

Dear Marty,

I do not quite know where to begin with your short but challenging ideas.  The examiner used CQT technique similar to my first two exams but I feel that in my case (I am far from a polygraph expert but I do have a rigid scientific background in scientific experiments), it would make sense to check my overall base line to my first polygraph experience where I was inconclusive and I had no polygraph knowledge.  I did not contest my first polygraph findings or professional performance of the polygraph examiner during that test.  I believe that they would concentrate on breathing patterns and bloodpressure since those are the two easiest "control" responses to manipulate.  Any strong responses to questions very similar to my first test where I was possibly unresponsive would be the only indicator of "possible" countermeasures.  I do feel that anyone who performs a "perfect" test will be strongly accused of countermeasures.  This is not a scientific result but more of a statistical probability for an examinee to respond perfectly to all control questions (and start and stop of test).  The polygraph readers know from history that few examinees score perfectly and will be suspect especially on a retest.  They obviously cannot prove anything, it is just a statistical quess that many of the examiners will call "gut" feeling (results from experience, not scientific test).  It might be completely coincidental that some examinees will confess to using countermeasures when accused which reinforces the confidence of this "gut" feeling.

As far as testing other polygraph examiners, my observation (please use understanding of "remarks or comments" instead of "observed facts" in this context {editied on 12/14/02 @1154 hours})is that they try and choose a more reactive question about specific incidents in their past which will allow a better reaction on control questions.  As human nature goes,  if I wanted to test someone, I would just keep running strips until random chance gives me acceptable strips and destroy the rest of the results.  I strongly doubt that the strips themselves are electronically encrypted and numbered (such as court evidence video tapes from banks) so this would be an easy process to do without anyone's knowledge.

I am not suggesting that any polygraph operator does this and this is speculation on your questions and ideas.  I believe it is a possibility.

Regards.

Fair_Chance,

First, let me say I found your approach (described earlier) honorable, something that, as I have come to know you, does not surprise me in the least.

Quote:


Since you informed them of your knowledge of polygraph techniqes, including somewhat deceptive practices utilized in CQT's, would you say they altered their testing processes? Perhaps used directed lie or or other techniques where examiner deception is not part and parcel?

I've always been curious as to how polygraphers "test" other polygraphers as the PLT would be difficult if not impossible to administer. Also, in the DLT, one wonders where exactly countermeasures begin and following instructions end.  CM is essentially following instructions in a DLT.

-Marty

Thanks for the insight.  I did read the online book and I did not use any CMs because I did not want to kick myself in hte a@@ because I am not sure I know exactly how to employ the CMs.  I guess I will just have to wait to see how it goes.  Thanks

Quote:

Dear Howard,

The FBI will not retest you if they think you were deceptive or used countermeasures (I know you are applying for a PD but I will only give you want I know to be accurate information).  An inconclusive result could mean many things.

1.  You were not responsive enough to the control questions compared to your relevent questions.
2.  You are possibly suspected of countermeasures and they want to do another test to confirm their suspicions.
3. You passed the test but the examiner has a "gut" feeling about your innocence.

The fact that they contacted you on their own accord I believe is a good sign.  I do not agree with pre-employment screening with no background investigation but try to keep a positive outlook on this.

Have you read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?  I did not use countermeasures on my last exam but just the fact that I understood the game going on helped me to react psychologically to the polygraph examiner's expectations.

Regards.

perhaps your test was inconclusive. don't panic.take new test, laugh at silly little machine....

Here we go, I took a polygraph last week and I imagine I did fine.  TOld truth, did not use any CM.  The polygraphist did not bring up any problems or any post interrogation with me, said he would "forward the report to the PD, Good Luck".  Now, I get a call from the PD telling me I have to go back and do a follow up polygraph.  What or Why?????  Has this happened to anyone??  Why would they want me to go back??  If I failed, would they ask me to do it again??  I can't imagine that happening.... Please help..Thanks