Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 3:41am:


Thank you.  But now you've made me curious.  Why would you assume the results were inconclusive after the third poly?

Per NSA polygraph regs, they would have needed Director of Security approval for a fourth, but it stands to reason they would have scheduled a fourth poly (or issued a rejection letter) inside of two months.

Skeptic

Sorry for not reading more closely.  I'm familiar with the NSA polygraph process and as I've stated before I have some acquaintances who administer polygraph examinations there.  They do a good job and they're good examiners.  I don't know what they're results are on every exam but I believe they get a high number of confessions/admissions.  I would disagree with your assessment on your polygraph examination.  I would imagine you were no opinion (inconclusive).  If you're a good applicant, they're not going to give up on you that easy.

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 2:52am:


Saidme,
If you re-read my statement, I think you'll find I said it didn't ruin my career.  I was referring to those for whom the polygraph was arguably a career-ender.

The NSA doesn't approach polygraphs as determining "truth" or "falsehood".  Rather, they use it as an interrogation prop for gaining confessions.  Thus, I went through three polygraph interrogations.  From contact with other NSA job-seekers, I believe this is not unusual for their process.   

I voluntarily withdrew my candidacy for a variety of reasons, but given the length of time after my last polygraph with no "rejection" notice, and given the "please apply again with us in the future" letter I received after withdrawing, I have every reason to believe I passed.

Skeptic

Skeptic

I'm unclear on your polygraph.  Did you pass it or fail it.  You talked about passing it then you talked about it ruining your career.  Which is it?  Regarding compassion.  I always have compassion for my fellow man.  Particularly the misguided souls taking our polygraph examinations.  Compassion is what get's those confessions.

YMWC-5 Stars

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 2:21am:


Since you won't back up most of your assertions of "facts", they are (pretty much by definition) "uncorroborated".  And claiming to be able to do what no one has demonstrated the ability to do (namely, detect countermeasures reliably) is, again by definition, a "boast".

Quote:


It seems to me, Saidme, that (given your passion for crime-fighting and your ability to carry on extended confrontations without allowing yourself to be baited) your skills as an interrogator are wasted on the polygraph.  Just my humble opinion, though.

Quote:


I forget nothing, Saidme.  All evidence says the polygraph doesn't do the job it is purported to do -- namely, discern truthfulness from falsehood with sufficent reliability to warrant faith in the device.  That's why I oppose it, not because my life has been ruined (or indeed, significantly impacted) by the polygraph.

I'm the first to admit I didn't enjoy my pre-employment polygraph sessions, but to the best of my knowledge, I "passed" them.  Not that being bitter about having one's career ruined by a bogus instrument is necessarily a bad thing, though.

Perhaps, in all of your time polygraphing suspects, you've forgotten how important a little compassion for your fellow man can be...

Skeptic

Skeptic

Much of my "uncorroborated boast" as you put it, is no more or no less valid than the garbage everyone else puts on this website.  To set the record straight, I'm just putting out the facts.  If you wish to view them as "boasts" then have at it.  I get no pleasure in having to respond to crime scenes involving serious injury, death, or sexual assault of a child.  I do however get great pleasure insuring these criminals go to jail for those crimes.  You anti folks forget the primary purpose of polygraph is to assist law enforcement in resolving these crimes.  You get caught up in your own little self-important world and whine to everyone about how you were wronged by the polygraph in your pre-employment interviews.  Whaaaa!  I get sick and tired of listening to your crap.  Okay, I feel better, I'm off the soap box.

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 3:50pm:


Saidme's right regarding the above agencies, Orolan -- though I would imagine that might have been what you were driving at in the first place.

Of course, it's always possible he's merely exaggerating his own hand in "landing [name a criminal] in jail".  As usual, most of what he says must be taken for the anonymous, uncorroborated boast it is.

Quote:


And I'd be surprised if they didn't turn such matters over to the appropriate law enforcement people in virtually all cases, since murder investigations really aren't their bailiwick.

Skeptic

Orolan

Seems like I've touched a nerve on your lack of law enforcement experience.  You're latest post continues to unmask your ignorance.   

Saidme,
Pretty much the response I expected from you. You're full of sh_t and you know it. There is NO Federal law enforcement agency that as a matter of day-to-day operations investigates EVERY type of crime you claim to have polygraphed and obtained confessions on. As I said, the FBI is the only one that even remotely might have a hand in all of them. But you say you don't work for the FBI, so we'll forget that one.
You choose not to answer because there is no such agency, and you know it. The alternative would be that you are lying about your alleged accomplishments.
So back up what you say. Name the agency, or admit that you're a liar.
You can give me all the "free rides" you want on my so-called bonehead comments. I really don't care. But don't expect me to reciprocate and give you a free ride on your unsubstantiated claims.

Orolan

No, I'm not and FBI examiner (thank god).

SEX

Even old time examiner's lose their confidence.  Just changes with time.  No different than an insurance guy who no longer can cut the mustard.

Suethem

My comments were regarding polygraph examiners only.  How you dragged the Supreme Court in is beyond me.

Orolan

Your ignorance knows no bounds.  CIA, DIA, and NSA are not federal law enforcement agencies.  They would be considered intelligence agencies.  However, I'm sure they would all be interested if their employees are child molesters.  Although I'm not a customs agent, I would bet the kitchen sink they've ran a few murder investigations.  Your knowledge of law enforcement concerns me.  I thought I was corresponding with people that had at least a basic understanding.  I'm going to have to discount anything you've said previously based on your ignorance.  Which basically means I'm giving you a free ride on your bone head comments.

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 4:17am:


What about a polygrapher who has gotten many DI's to confess? By your logic, their technique works, so if they choose to later denounce polygraphy, it's obviously not because they weren't confident in their abilities.

Saidme,

So now all ex-polygraphers are either at 'trembling woods' due to a loss of confidence-  "Doctor, I just can't take the pressure!"   

or

The polygraphers, who no longer believe in what they did, never really had the abilities to be good polygrapher in the first place (eventhough they got hired and passed all their 'extensive' training).

Only the weak or stupid ( I guess that includes the Supreme Court and the NAS) don't believe in polygraphy!!!

orolan wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 4:38am:


Orolan,
A pre-employment screen might result in confessions of all sorts, but hasn't Saidme remarked that he has never done those?

Skeptic

Saidme,
Since you ignore your own "advice" and remain off-topic, I'll respond to your post.
Quote:

I never claimed to have any law enforcement experience. What I do have is knowledge. Or do I? Please enlighten me, oh great one. Tell us what Federal LEA handles those types of cases. Agencies tend to "specialize" in a few different crimes, but none handles ALL of the types you claim to have gained confessions on. CIA doesn't do rapes and thefts. Ditto DIA or Customs. The Post Office police don't care about murders. NSA wouldn't give a rat's a__ about a child molester or a purse snatcher. The FBI might see fit to involve itself one way or another in all of those crimes, but it would be a stretch.
Maybe that's it. Your an FBI polygrapher. No wonder you don't like Drew

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 4:17am:


Sorry to belabor the point, but I'm afraid I'm still not quite clear on what you're saying.  Are you saying that you believe all former examiners who now oppose the polygraph do so because they lost their confidence in administering polygraph examinations, as opposed to doing so because they lost their confidence in the test's accuracy and efficacy itself, period?  The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know -- in fact, the former might be seen as due to the latter.

How can you be sure of this?

Skeptic

I would place the majority in that catagory.  I'm sure there are a few exceptions.  I would place all former examiner's who oppose polygraph as those who've lost their own confidence in administering polygraph examinations.  They beleive it is bogus because they don't have the capabilities to properly run an examination.  And like I said before, it's certainly better for the examinees that those folks are no longer administering polygraphs.  It's just as well their out there supporting you guys.   

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 2:46am:


I can almost picture the studied look of wide-eyed innocence on your face as you wrote the above, Saidme  Oh, have it your way: you're "just curious".

Quote:


Hmmm...I note you've completely excluded the possibility that one might come to a reasoned, logical conclusion through one's experiences that the polygraph is bogus...

Do I gather correctly from the above that you believe any former examiner who now opposes the polygraph is simply "bitter"?  If so, would you be so kind as to provide references to the polling you've conducted on the matter?  

Or is this another one of those infamous Saidme "specifics and evidence are for lesser beings" assertions?

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 2:46am:


anonymouse wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 3:14am:


Yeah, it's priceless alright.  Because the word he's looking for is "opponent".

Actually they do fall into two groups.  Those who end up believing they're sticking it to the examinees are the examiners who have either lost they're confidence or never had it to begin with.  From a polygraph (or examinee's) perspective, it's best they leave the profession anyway because they probably would stick it to some poor examinee.  It's actually a win-win situation for everyone.   

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 2:46am:


Don't you think it's possible your thinking might be a little too narrow if you believe ex-polygraphers only fall into two groups: those who enjoyed it and those who hate it because they couldn't succeed at it? I think you're leaving out the possibility where the examiner realizes s/he practices a garbage science that screws innocent people out of potential jobs and/or casts criminal suspicion on them, and simply gives it up. I don't think denouncing polygraphy automatically makes one a "bitter proponent" (see subject) of it. Could you explain why you believe that nobody who has given up polygraphy has done so because they simply realized it was a sham?

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 2:46am:


priceless

Skeptic

Acutally I wanted to hear from Drew about his experiences.  I'm interested to know some of the following:  Was he a full time polygraph examiner?  Did he attend polygraph school only as part of a research project?  If he ran polygraph examinations would he (or his peers) considered him to have been competent?  If he ran polygraph examinations, would he have considered himself to have been a competent interrogator?  I think it's important to know because there are examiners out in the field who don't succeed at polygraph.  Not necessarily because they're knuckleheads but because they're probably better suited for other programs in law enforcement.  Many of those former examiners know their limitations and move on carrying fond memories of their former profession.  Others move on as bitter proponents of polygraph because they couldn't succeed and since they couldn't succeed, they'll do anything to undermine polygraph as an excellent law enforcement tool.  I just wanted to see which side of the fence Drew stood.