Please George,

Do me a favor and call the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and sincerely ask who the resident polygragher is?

If I am mistaken, then shame on me.  Truly.

If the "J.B." that you know is different than the Jim McCloughan at PFO, then this is the most unusual case of mistaken identity that has ever occured.  Please, call.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm back.  Your right, the Breeze, Skeptic, Dave, George, I was a little hostile before I left on TDY.  And I apologize for any cantankerous behavior, but I will not back down from my position.   

Dave, you said that you don’t understand what my ‘uncovering’ accomplishes.  First of all, you don’t know Jim like I know him.  Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website.  Third, has Jim responded?  (On this thread, not likely)

The Breeze, who are you kidding, I attack LE officers every day, its my job to make sure that my operations are running on schedule.  Otherwise, it’s my ass on the Washington Grille.

And speaking of agendas, let me make my agenda absolutely CLEAR: Man’s utter reliance and trust in technology will doom us all.  From polygraphs to StopLight Photography, we entrust too much in digital electronics and binary code.  WE’RE GETTING LAZY!

Here’s a sad story: My neighbor just told me that his 3rd grade son’s math workbook instructs him to solve problems with a calculator.  Not algebra, ladies and gentlemen, simple addition and subtraction.  Let that settle in your gut for a couple of minutes.  My agenda is clear.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++   

Rick, you wrote:

Quote:


First, it's clear that you have no idea who J.B. McCloughan (who, by the way, does not go by the name of "Jim") is. I know Mr. McCloughan through private message, e-mail, and telephone exchanges. He is not an FBI Special Agent. He is not in Philadelphia. And he was not involved in the Traficant investigation, making "a fool of himself in front of the entire nation," as you have previously alleged.

Second, any "agenda" that Mr. McCloughan has in posting here is scarcely concealed. He has offered his ideas on how polygraph countermeasures might be detected (even sending scanned portions of charts for posting on this message board), argued in support of the validity of CQT polygraphy, and discussed concealed information tests, among other things. I have often disagreed with him. But I've always found him to be courteous and respectful of others. I see no reason to suppose that Mr. McCloughan (who has recently revealed his last name here) has any hidden agenda.

Third, you ask if Mr. McCloughan ("Jim," as you call him) has responded. Well, indeed he has. He replied directly to your claims in a post in this message thread dated 11 September.

I'm back.  Your right, the Breeze, Skeptic, Dave, George, I was a little hostile before I left on TDY.  And I apologize for any cantankerous behavior, but I will not back down from my position.   

Dave, you said that you don’t understand what my ‘uncovering’ accomplishes.  First of all, you don’t know Jim like I know him.  Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website.  Third, has Jim responded?  (On this thread, not likely)

The Breeze, who are you kidding, I attack LE officers every day, its my job to make sure that my operations are running on schedule.  Otherwise, it’s my ass on the Washington Grille.

And speaking of agendas, let me make my agenda absolutely CLEAR: Man’s utter reliance and trust in technology will doom us all.  From polygraphs to StopLight Photography, we entrust too much in digital electronics and binary code.  WE’RE GETTING LAZY!

Here’s a sad story: My neighbor just told me that his 3rd grade son’s math workbook instructs him to solve problems with a calculator.  Not algebra, ladies and gentlemen, simple addition and subtraction.  Let that settle in your gut for a couple of minutes.  My agenda is clear.   

Skeptic
In the Metro set up that Im in, we do not disqualify based on polygraph but rather verified information that may result from such tests.  An "inconclusive" is not a problem unless it points a background investigator in a specific direction.
Its clear I respectfully disagree with you on the tools utility.  Your focus is human rights (of course our applicants are treated with respect) and mine is what I consider practical to LE aims.  Have we ever lost anyone who would of made a good officer? probably.  Im not sure doing away with polygraph would change that, just the vehicle by which it happens i.e. background investigator bias/faulty investigation/recruiter "gut feelings" etc.etc.
Since one of your solutions to the problem I raised is less reliance on the tool, I wonder if you think this is a probable short term fix?  I dont believe polygraph use is weakening, in fact the opposite seems to be occuring regardless of the efforts made here.  If that is true, your solution seems more hopeful than practical.
We have probably run the course.  It was nice to have a exchange on this site with a stable individual not prone to hysterics.

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 16^th, 2002 at 5:37pm:


Let me make two points.  First, I certainly do assume that "all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of their basic rights" -- this is a basic tenet of our constitutional justice system, and applies not only to the polygraph but to everything in which law enforcement is involved.  However, I don't believe that one must assume all polygraph subjects are telling the truth for countermeasures to be a good idea.  The protection of the innocent is simply too important, and I don't believe such protections are currently part of the polygraph process.

I do agree that "it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm".  However, there is more than one solution to this problem (we might start by placing far less emphasis on the results of polygraph exams), and as I hope I've indicated, I believe the benefits outweigh the harm.


Quote:


Actually, I'd still see it as "anecdotal"  -- consider that you have no idea how many people get by the polygraph who also have disqualifying information in their backgrounds.  Are you sure you're not simply getting better liars for employees?

And what of people who drop out of the process due to the invasiveness and discouragement of repeated failed polygraphs?  What of those who falsely confess (despite Batman's assertions, we know this takes place)?  

For that matter, what about someone who, after repeated polygraphs, is pushed to reveal something that might appease the polygrapher, and thus looks like he or she was withholding information they simply didn't think of as responsive to the questions in the first place?

Additionally, I do hope your agency does not disqualify based on polygraph results alone (I think you indicated this previously).  If it does, then you are missing out on good people falsely found deceptive.

Skeptic

Skeptic
Your well reasoned words work in both directions.  You do know that Phd. level research exists to support the utility of polygraph. It exists to show that it is a coin toss as well. We both know that proponents can find supporting documentation for almost any position, even the ones you named.  I do not debate reliability or validity here for this reason.  I will be told that the research is flawed, self serving, funded by DODPI or just plain wrong. This brands me as evasive to some.
Could I convince a PETA operative that research on inhalation toxicology done on dogs is necessary in that it may save a soldiers life?  You can imagine the response I would get....in fact it might resemble some of the posters here. More emotional than logical.
Your thoughts on preconcieved ideas certainly apply as well to many writers here, there is no moral high ground occupied solely by anti polygraph folks.  I would like to think I do not have a preconcieved notion, even though I am clearly in a minority position here.  Since I have said now repeatedly that I believe the tool is flawed, and certainly does not replace good police work- I should not be considered a zealot.
Thanks for answering my questions.  In response to your thinking on countermeasures you make two good points, but they are from the preposition that all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of thier basic rights/ and are telling the truth. Is it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm? Is the need to revenge oneself against a tool/process worth that?  I believe Lykken made an excellent reference to this point.
Maybe the value judgement you speak of is what has allready happened in LE and Govt ref. the use of this tool. Investigators and administrators know that backgrounds (which are always done prior) are limited and flawed, but there is a chance that this tool may uncover information not available any other way. In the case of my own agency it has prevented felons from being commissioned when a records check and background did not come up with disqualifying information.  But a failed polygraph and subsequent admission closed the circle.  Could I define that as testamonial rather than anecdotal?
With this use (as allready pointed out) mistakes do occur.  From having spent most of my adult life in Govt. both federal and state, I just do not see the rights violations others here are speculating about. But I have seen Govt. bend over backwards in retaining people that should have been fired, and protecting security clearances. I am not saying it has never happened.The MM case is troubling to me if it has been completely and accurately explained.
I think you make your points well and without rancor.  Since I am not a good candidate for indoctrination (which ran me on the rocks early here) that is appreciated.

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 16^th, 2002 at 3:36am:


Happens to the best of us.  Sometimes brief is better, anyway.

Quote:


The trouble with this reasoning is that casual observation (as opposed to scientific study) may convince one that many things are correct which are not.  Thanks to confirmation bias (the tendency to notice that which confirms our preconceptions), people can see what seems like solid evidence for astrology, ESP, and other unscientific beliefs.  And it's not a matter of being gullible.  Confirmation bias affects the most intelligent and seasoned of scientists.


Quote:


Depends upon how it is used.  I have real problems with how it's currently used in the U.S.

Quote:


I believe it is more important that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted.  As pertains to the polygraph, this is a tool with documented flaws that are out of proportion to its reputation as a "lie detector", and a documented bias against innocent people.  This means that the reputations of innocent people are impugned, government misses out on the talent of loyal, competent Americans, and false confidence is put in the notion that the guilty don't get by -- all very counterproductive to society.

Countermeasures serve two purposes.  First, they serve directly to protect the innocent from false accusation and all its attendant negative consequences.  Second, they serve to remind us of the false confidence placed in the polygraph, regardless of the existence of countermeasures.

Quote:


Of course.  In general, though, that failure rate is scientifically documented and taken into account.  As I see it, neither are the case with the polygraph.

Quote:


Please see my response to your question regarding countermeasures.  Given these flaws and the additional fact that the polygraph is an invasive, disrespectful and traumatizing tool, I have real ethical problems with this particular "test" that go above and beyond accuracy issues.

Quote:


Nothing is perfect.  That doesn't mean we can't make value judgements as to what is appropriate to the task at hand and with an eye to people's rights.

Quote:


Sir, I am a democrat, which some would say means I place an inordinate amount of trust in government.  But even I know that decisions in government are frequently made for less than rational and fair reasons.

I'll say this for you:  you're persistent.

Skeptic

Skeptic
I had prepared my usual overlong response to you and then it dropped. So Ill do a short one for a change.
You are right about civility. Please check my early posts and see the way I was spoken to so you might understand any lack of civility I demonstrated.  I regret some of my responses now because I know that its pointless.
I believe in what I see and what my experiences tell me are valid, this was why I furnished the example.  Since I have seen this previously in my career, I dont consider it a ruse or prop. Did aristotle say "that which repeats is not due to chance"? It can be irritating when others, no matter how articulate or passionate, voice an opinion based on one failed polygraph as a platform.  The only reason I have asked one especially aggressive member of this forum to reply with some kind of background statement is for this reason.  If you have never seen this tool work, but emotionally believe otherwise, that does not automatically generate respect.
I have been taken to task for not answering as expected so let me ask my own questions-
Is the polygraph a valid LE tool?
Is teaching countermeasures productive to society?
Is there a failure rate in other diagnostic procedures?
Is it ethical to tell a applicant to distort a test because the tool is inaccurate?
Are background checks subject to bias and incompetence?

I think I had other questions on my lost post but this will do.
Finally I would say this to my detractors, If your irritated with me for not furnishing evidence to your standards, imagine how hypocritical it appears when you make fantastic leaps into my competence without reviewing my spotless IA file, interviewing those I work with or conducting basic research.  George will point you in the right direction if thats important to you.
As far as what I have said, I stand by it.  I know something of the government clearence process- and I know a failed job applicant polygraph will not cause by itself a clearance revocation.  I believe there is more, and George does not want to address it except to say Im wrong.  This is not preparation for a court case, this is my opinion based on facts at hand.  It is not privacy information as he has alleged, no one has asked for anything like that just a discussion in general terms of what was said to his investigators.  My highly placed scource says it was enough to pass him over.  Now why would a linguist with skills in great demand, be passed over in such a spectacular way unless there was more to this story.
I will apoligize to all if my other redundant post suddenly appears

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 14^th, 2002 at 4:51pm:


I don't think anyone here has or will deny that valid and valuable confessions are obtained every day with the polygraph as an aid.  Such anecdotal evidence simply isn't the issue that's being discussed.

The problems I have (and others seem to have) with the polygraph are the overall validity of the technique (which cannot be confirmed or refuted with anecdotal evidence alone) and the brutality, invasiveness and disrespect of the methodology itself.  Valid and valuable confessions have been and are being obtained through the use of physical torture, as well.  However, I am quite sure, Breeze, that you would not condone such a practice.  The sometime utility of a technique simply doesn't tell the whole story.

In my educated humble opinion, the available evidence says polygraphs overall are simply not reliable indicators of whether someone in innocent or guilty.  Beyond their use as an interrogation prop, the error rates are too high to trust the results.  This raises significant issues regarding national security and just treatment of job applicants, not to mention criminal suspects.

Quote:


Aside from minor jibes, I for one have only seen people attack your actions (the things you've said or questions you've refused to address) and possible motivations behind them.  Some of Mr. Thirde's material has been an exception.

It should be noted, however, that when you cast personal aspersions, it tends to invite the same.

Quote:


In general, Breeze, my friendship is not easy to come by.

As to credentials and/or backgrounds, there is nothing wrong with asking about them.  Addressing them tends to have limited utility,though (for example, if someone is specifically asserting personal knowledge or expertise, or opinion based specifically and solely upon personal experience). They simply aren't relevant to the validity of most of the points being raised here, however, as those involve relating the knowledge and expertise of others.

Quote:


Regardless of where my sympathies lie, it is your out-and-out libel of Mr. Maschke (who I have yet to see engage in such behavior himself) with which I have a problem.  If you want to know, I fully agree with George and Dave that Rick Thirde's attacks on J.B. (who has also done an excellent job of sticking to the issues and discussed them in a rational and thoughtful manner) were rude and unwarranted, as well.  I'd like to see them stopped.   

Quote:


Why would you assume that my position is based upon blind loyalty?

Quote:


Given the fact that the results of polygraph exams are taken into account, I do believe they are denied based upon very poor data.

Quote:


I hope you don't think I have tried to do so.  All I am trying to address is what you're presenting in this forum.

Skeptic

New Friends:
I almost forgot the reason why I logged on yesterday, I enjoyed George's story of high adventure and excrement, but I have one a bit more relevant for the readers.
A few days ago I sat in on a polygraph in connection with a double murder that happened last month.  Because it was "dealer on dealer" you might imagine that no one was too enthused to talk to Det's about the case.  All financial inducements had failed and the case was going no where.  The case detective made the decision to polygraph a key witness whose story did not quite make sense. The polygraph subject told her story and the polygraph operator at the conclusion of the exam confronted the person with her failing results.  The usual lengthy denials followed but the polygrapher kept bringing her back to the relevant.  After about 30 minutes this person suddenly buried her head in her hands and made a confession that she was in fact a co-conspiritor to a double homicide.  I was impressed.  This serious case can now go forward, warrants are being signed and It will be solved.  But my question is this....what did I observe?  A cheap trick, coin toss, lucky chance event, false confession or valid LE use of an admittedly imperfect tool?
My problem with the overwhelming number of posters on this site is simple.  Your experience with the polygraph is in my view severly limited.  Failing a pre-employment does not give you a well rounded base to give opinion about validity.  George fits into this category, except that he took the extra steps of educating himself.
My thought is this:  If a polygraph will help me solve a crime or IA case I want the option to use it, warts and all.  Since I have freely admitted that this tool seems to be imperfect, I think I have more objectivity than most who visit here, when I say I dont want my options limited by those who are dogmatic about the issue.

To attack me personally is a convienient way to sidestep the message of ethics.  I have only given the general facts of my employment here to illustrate the point that I am not blindly following any ideology.  If you have no basis to speak from how can you be considered credible?. I have both taken and seen the device as it is used, I do not fear it.  If that makes me a target here, no problem.
So my new friend skeptic, this is why I have asked about others backgrounds.  If you want to take a firearms course, you would like to know that your instructor has at least handled one at some point.  Since I have asked for nothing specific or personal, this does not seem unreasonable.   My choice is not to add my own personal information to this site, George's little story notwithstanding.  If I grow to respect the views and see open mindedness suddenly appear, I will most likely change my mind.
And skeptic, (since you appear to have been tagged and are on point) why is something that the founder says automatically carved in stone for you? sharing beliefs and feeling threatened by a contrary experienced view is one thing, blind loyality is another.  I have stated that the source of my comments about George's lack of candor to the FBI stem from the fact that he failed his test and made admissions. This is a matter of record and available to you.  If I see that George did not make such I will be the first to apoligize.  I would point out to you that denying federal employment and the removal of security clearences is not done at a whim.  Im sorry, but the ball is still in George's court on this one....
Somehow trying to make my personal thoughts as expressed here with emotional responders, into a competence issue at my place of employment is unnecessary and pointless.  It would also be very wrong.

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 14^th, 2002 at 1:23am:


Mr. Breeze,
You are continuing to dance around the point.  You were the one who claimed George was untruthful.  The burden is on you to prove your assertion, not on others to prove you false.  Your one attempt to back up your assertion has been "outed" as wholly unsupportive of your position.  Do you have the integrity and intellectual honesty to admit you have no evidence for your accusation and apologize, or will you continue to post your libel?

If not, I believe you will lose all remaining credibility with your readers.

Skeptic

Thirde
You presume alot.  Fetch your coffee? I place the federal people that assist me on warrant entries on perimeter. (at thier request) I guess the idea of possible gunplay becomes overwhelming.  Since local municipalities make most of your cases (you do re- write them well) I can understand your hostility.  If you are a federal agent, I suggest you leave the psychological analysis to those qualified.  To throw your lot in with a group of hysterical anti-polygraph zealots because you believe in a thorough investigation (who does not?) borders on the pathetic.
I have to admit that calling me "violent and unstable" when you see your friends threatened did brighten my day.  Any reasonableness or dignity you might of wanted to portray, quickly disappeared in your posts to the FBI agent.
What ever you think of me is mildly interesting.  You sound like a blowhard.  A real fed probably would be a bit more discreet in his responses, but I cant be sure as they are typing all day when I visit the local task force.
The reason I have taken this tone (which seems to have offended you) with this particular group is they are as a whole advocating a position I just cannot understand ethically or professionally. Are ethics important in whatever agency you represent? Is the position advocated here (deception because the tool is invalid) yours as well? If you followed the thread you saw the progression of my responses, and my growing anger at what I believe to be borderline criminal advice.
It strikes me as odd you find kindred spirits here.  Since you want a  Sheriff's detective to feel honored you even took the time to respond to someone so unworthy, help me understand what you gain from helping a group of people that could make your next investigation that much harder if it goes to polygraph? If you choose not to use it in your investigations, then maybe you think more like I do than you will care to admit.  Also, I would never attack another LE officer with unbelievable presumptions of incompetence as you have. You truly have no clue here-
Typing a name at the end of a posting does not translate into credibility.  You have demonstrated that.
To Beech:  Ok ill bite.  Since you like yes or no responses even if you are unwilling to give same- just who specifically were the sexual assault victims shown as DI, that allowed thier attackers to re-offend?.  Please be specific (so I can check) as I am truly curious. Maybe your federal friend will take the ball and investigate the polygrapher (local law im sure) for federal civil rights violations.  Could be alot of work...

And to George, Im not surprised you would not want to post your post test responses to the FBI during your failed polygraph.  Perhaps you could stop gritting your teeth and just prove me a liar by your own words.  Ill be waiting, but in the mean time Ill trust my sources, my own research and my own instincts.
Simply saying (bleeting?) that you are truthfull sounds sufficient to the faithfull but rings hollow to those more objective.   

Rick Thirde,

What constructive purpose does it serve to publicly 'out' someone's identity during the course of this discussion? I for one am uncomfortable with this as it will no doubt create a chilling effect for both sides of future debates...

Perplexed,

Dave

Please Jim, I’d expect more from you.  Using the classic Bureau DEMCA strategy (Deny Everything, Make Counter-Accusations) is ridiculous, especially since you know who I am and know what I know.   

No, you are not an accountant as of the present moment, and it was very sly of you to say that “I am not an accountant.”  But we both know your excellent track record in prosecuting fraud investigations as a Bureau Agent.  (Except for your embarrassment in the Trafficant case)  For goodness sake, Jim, give it up.

And, yes, I know that you do not represent the views of the Bureau, but I am quite sure that you apply your views to your daily routine. But to try and hide your identity now is futile, especially since anyone reading this right now can call the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and confirm you as being the resident polygrapher.   

Don’t be angry that I exposed your identity.  You already used your name, as have I.  What do you expect, Jim?  Maybe its time for both of us to retire.

To tell you the truth, I’m already growing tired of having to respond to your ineffective attempts to remain anonymous while adhering to the Bureau credo of “Truth”(within acceptable parameters).  Its too bad that you do a lousy job of it, but then again, that’s why you never excelled at field work, and Marty can vouch for that.   

Rick,

First, not that it is relevant or incumbent for me to respond to your last assertion, you are incorrect on your information and assertion.  I nor anyone else with my last name have ever been employed by the NYPD or FBI.  If you work for the federal government as you have exerted, that information would be a phone call away for you to confirm.  If I did not make it clear enough to you in previous posts I have made, any views, thoughts, writings, etc... I convey here or anywhere else outside an official assigned function of my employment are my own and not that of anyone else.  Any views, thoughts, writings, etc... I convey are in no way to be construed to represent any agency, department, association, entity, etc...  I have never attempted to represent any different. 

Second, I am a polygraph examiner and not an accountant.

Third, I have never nor do I now claimed to be the "judge, jury, and executioner of promising young Americans."  I am not.   

Opinions are opinions.  Scientific research data is scientific research data.

Quote:

If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.
- Abraham Lincoln 

Rick,

As one who has often vigorously disagreed with J.B. on matters related to polygraphy (see, for example, the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph), I think your remarks to J.B. are entirely unwarranted. First, he didn't discuss any "logic of electronics" here. Second, although I don't believe J.B. has cared to discuss the particulars of his employment on this message board, I can tell you that your conclusion that he is an FBI Special Agent in Philadelphia who was involved in the Traficant investigation and "made a fool of himself in front of the entire nation" is completely wrong.

Moreover, J.B. has always been courteous in his posts here. I think you owe him an apology.

How's the weather in Philadelphia, Bureau Agent McCloughan?   

When I get the time, I will respond to how ignorant your logic of electronics is.  Honestly, I'd expect more from the son of a New York City Cop.

S/A Thirde

P.S. Way to go on Congressman Trafficant's case in Ohio!  I'm sorry that you made a fool of yourself in front of the entire nation.  Remember Jim, just because you use to crunch numbers as an accountant for the Bureau doesn't mean that you can be the judge, jury, and executioner of promising young Americans by crunching polygraph numbers.

Rick & Fred,

I confer that nothing should supplant a thorough investigation.  I have listened to several lectures on the topic of pre-employment polygraph.  It is my personal opinion that polygraph was intended to be used as a tool in the pre-employment process to aid background investigators in focusing on segments of the investigation and resolve any unresolved issues that were discovered in the investigation, not as a thaumaturgic tool.  Two of my personal ideas of a properly used pre-employment polygraph are listed below.  I personally believe that the later information based GKT would be preferable, if a polygraph was needed, and could be administered in this type of specific issue setting.  In my opinion, a properly conducted and documented background investigation would leave little (if any) necessity for a polygraph in a pre-employment setting.

CQT

1.  A thorough background investigation is conducted.
2.  The background investigator interviews the applicant and attempts to resolve any issues that arose in the investigation.
3.  If a specific issue cannot be resolved, a CQT polygraph is administered on that specific issue.
4.  Any information obtained from the polygraph is confirmed and, if need be, step 3 is repeated one last time for final resolution.
5.  All the information obtained from the background investigation is then reviewed by a panel to determine weather the applicant should proceed to the next step or be dismissed from the process.

GKT   

1.  A thorough background investigation is conducted.
2.  If a specific issue is discovered in the investigation, a GKT is constructed and administered on that issue.
3.  Any information obtained from the polygraph is confirmed.
4.  All the information obtained from the background investigation is then reviewed by a panel to determine weather the applicant should proceed to the next step or be dismissed from the process.

Quote:



Mr. Thirde,

BRAVO to you!!!! It is refreshing to hear your comments about a SEASONED INTUITION and THOROUGH INVESTIGATION being done instead of reliance on "electronics" . This unfortunately is the exception and not the rule in many LE agencies. 

Many entities rely on polygraphy as a "shortcut" to a complete investigation for pre-employment and maybe even some criminal investigations. The rational being that if we can ask 15 questions and determine "deception" on drug use and theft, among other areas of "concern", candidates aren't worthy of a job in LE. 

Keep up the effort


Fred F.  

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 6^th, 2002 at 12:19am:


Unfortunately, it is no longer speculation The_Breeze. In the time you took simply composing the above paragraph you could have answered the simple yes or no question ten times over. Regardless of your work-related excuses, it is you-- through your own actions, no one else's-- who has dictated the conclusions here, not 'us'.

I did consider trying one last time to engage you in some sort of legitimate debate, however your sentiments above lead me to the inescapable conclusion that you simply will do anything in your power to avoid answering direct questions. And while you are clearly indisposed to reading or heeding advice from me, I will make the observations that, on the internet, it doesn't matter in the slightest how physically imposing a person is, nor how tough they can talk, bluster, bludgeon, intimidate, etc. The mere fact that you incessantly make reference to your badge and mantle of authority as some sort of magic talismans whereby your word should be the final say in *any* matter is evidence enough that you do not deserve the people's trust or respect-- but combine that with your remarkably asinine 'profile' of me, along with the sophmoric dodges, the finger-pointing, and the outright lies about the creator of this website...... I wash my hands of you The_Breeze. God help the men & women who are served by a mid size SW Sheriff's dept.

The Breeze,

You write in part:

Quote:


Regarding security clearance matters, I have nothing to add to my remarks at the NAS meeting, and I see no compelling need to post Privacy Act information about myself to counter your completely unsubstantiated accusations against me.

You also write:

Quote:


Yes, libel is safest when done anonymously, isn't it?

Let me share with you a parable that perhaps you'll understand:

[font=Garamond,Georgia,Palatino]

Once upon a time, in the Land of Enchantment, a conceited little bird lived in a place between the mountains and mesas astride the river that is called Grand. Flitting about in the sky, he imagined that it was the flapping of his little wings that caused The Breeze to blow. To be sure, this was no ordinary little bird, for he had Special Weapons and Tactics. Amongst the Most Special of these was this: hiding amidst the branches of a tall and mighty tree, he would release his droppings on the lowly creatures that ventured below. His targets would look up in irritation, but could see not whence the unprovoked attack had come: the little bird was completely invisible behind the cover of the tree's dense foliage. This gave the little bird no small measure of amusement.

One fine summer's day, a hunter passed under the tree, whereupon the little bird released upon his head a particluarly generous measure of excrement. "What bird is this, that has droppings so large?" thought the hunter to himself. "It must be some grand bird of prey, and would make a fine trophy." Raising his musket to the sky and peering over the sights, the hunter at first saw nothing. The little bird laughed to himself. But then the hunter caught a glimpse of the little bird's tail feathers, which appeared through a gap in the foliage. What the hunter had imagined must be a mighty Eagle turned out to be nothing more than a pompous little Jay. With the unwitting little bird in his sights, the hunter put his finger on the trigger and was about to avenge the gratuitous insult this impertinent little creature had visited upon him. But then he lowered his musket. "No, little Jay," he thought to himself, "You're not worth the powder."

[/font]

Breeze,
Intentionally or not, in post after post you demonstrate irony in the choice of your screen name.  There's a lot of hot air there, but not a whole lot of substance.


The_Breeze wrote on Sep 6^th, 2002 at 12:19am:


Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to why Beech Trees' credentials have any relevance as to the accuracy of the information he presents or the questions he poses for you?

Quote:


Ironic, then, that you'd be hung up on someone else's credentials (which, thanks to online anonymity, could be falsified at will).  Perhaps, in lieu of answering the question I asked above, you'd care to enlighten us as to why your identity (and thus, credentials) should be irrelevant to the points you make, yet critical to whether others' points and questions are valid?

Quote:


Careful with that backpedalling, Breeze...

You might recall that you made the specific claim that George had been untruthful in his polygraph.  You have failed to back up that claim.  You've been called on it.  The appropriate response, if you cannot back up such an accusation, is to retract the statement and apologize.

(rest of self-serving nonsense snipped for brevity)

Skeptic

The Breeze,

In part you wrote:

Quote:


I agree with you on the notion that polygraph works in a specific criminal issue setting.  I agree that one should not cast the lot to banish the stone.

I disagree with the notion of misusing polygraph for what it was not intended nor validated.  I have read intellectual message posts of pro- and anti-polygraph individuals on this site.  It is my personal opinion that, for the most part, the process (pre-employment screening), not the instrument or examiner, is being disputed here.  I have scoured the available research. Research has not proven this process valid, even when conducted in the sterile setting of an analog study.  I have read the opinions of many of those who designed and conducted the research.  These persons seem to say it has not been proven.  

For the most part, polygraph is used at the end of a thorough investigation in order to resolve that unresolved specific issues that has been discovered.  Most of the time the scope of suspected has been narrowed to a few individuals.  In most of these cases a CQT is administered to those select few to aid the investigators in focusing their investigation.  In some countries a GKT is administered and used as forensic evidence in court.  This is where polygraph as been proven to work.

I will give you a hypothetical situation of a pre-employment screening process when instituted in the typical use of the polygraph, criminal specific issue. 

An investigator comes to you and says, "Breeze. I know there must be some crime afoot in my area.  I do not know of any but there must be someone violating some law.  I am going to bring you every person from my area and I want you to tell me who has committed what crime.  Once I have your professional opinion on these matters, I will seek a warrant for, arrest, and prosecute these individuals based on your polygraph."  

What would you say to this investigator? 

I know for a fact that I would not stake anything on a SPOT to resolve weather an individual has committed a specific crime out of a list of many not even probable known crimes.  However, it has been suggested that the above scenario is exactly what is being done in some incidents of the pre-employment process.   

The Breeze,

It is very easy for you to feel comfortable whilst hiding behind a fortified barrier with line-of-sight of your enemy, while the opposition has no tactical intel on your position.  Make sense?  It should, because in my summation, you enjoy anonymity while attacking those who have exposed themselves.  Undoubtedly, you are a municipal officer (maybe state, but I doubt it) who is probably dissatisfied with their current level of authority.  I have unfortunately had to work with municipal officers of your character, and all you guys do is violate prosecutional guidelines and jeopardize operational security, partly due to your inferiority complex and 'big-mouth syndrome.'

If you were ever tasked to one of my operations as a municipal liaison to the Feds, I would have you putting up yellow-tape and fetching coffee.  Why?  Because your verbal demeanor resembles a man of violent and unstable behavior who has something to prove to the world.  Second Lesson in Law Enforcement: The Aforementioned Personality Type Has No Place in ‘Protecting and Serving’ at any Level.   

Third Lesson in Law Enforcement: Never Prosecute Without Concrete, Tangible Evidence.  This is the prime reason that, as a Fed, I currently speak-out against polygraph.  Electronics can never take the place of seasoned intuition and thorough investigation.  This is a lesson that you will learn with continued experience, but unfortunately you have already sentenced several people based on personal bias, which is even more heinous than ‘conjecture and hearsay.’      

Feel privileged that a decorated Fed is giving you advice.   

Good luck with the final chapter of your career.  I hope that you will rapidly mature in a short period of time and make a meaningful contribution to society. 

Sincerely, Rick Thirde

Breeze,

You write:

Quote:


Don't be so parsimonious in your analysis, Breeze...you seem to have trouble with any reasoning.  How simple can Beechtrees make it for you??  He asked for a simple yes or no answer to a specific question.  Your middle age and impending retirement is not necessarily indicative of cognitive dysfunction, but your lack of responsiveness leads one to wonder…

With regard to Mr. Maschke, you write:

Quote:


In the middle of what...what George has claimed to be true and what you have previously surmised (giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to motivation).  Your guessing is not a basis for and certainly provides no justification for your libel.  Presumably most of the pro-polygraph types who visit and/or post on this site are employed by one of several government(s) and agencies that have some connection to law enforcement.  Do any of you base anything you say or do on evidence??  You previously indicated that there was evidence connected with his NAS testimony that he had lied with regard to one or more relevant issues on an applicant polygraph exam or more generally in connection with the application process.  You have provided exactly zero evidence to support your libelous assertion.  If you are in fact a law enforcement officer it's time for some responsible commentary for you.  I suppose even a merciful lack of commentary will do...