A newer version of the federal Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET) administration guide, dated 3 March 2016, is now available:

https://antipolygraph.org/documents/ncca-lepet.pdf

amazedxx1,

I applaud George for his unwavering effort to reveal the deception involved [taught by DODPI] with respect to polygraph testing, whether pre-employment or other. False positive results are not uncommon.

[You wrote:]
“However, I have faith in the those who strive to do the right thing and stay one step ahead of your infectious anger.”

My question to you is this, what would you say to “those who strive to do the right thing”, and still fall victim to a false positive result? 

You should consider utilizing marginal discretion when pointing your finger at others; it could be easily interpreted in your own post that you too possess infectious anger…

False positive polygraph results are not uncommon. The public should be informed.

Knowledge is power.

Triple x

amazedxx1,

The way I remember it, the good guys tell the truth.


Don't blame George, Dr. Drew, or the NAS for telling the truth about the polygraph.

Blame the DODPI, DOE and FBI for not admitting that their flawed, little 'voodoo box' is a sham.

As citizens we're supposed to trust our government, right?

Yes, Good Work George.

I am sure you have much to be proud in making public a good exam such as LEPET.  However, I have faith in the those who strive to do the right thing and stay one step ahead of your infectious anger.  Yes, that is right.  You have anger that became infectious as tuberculosis.  Instead of turning your energies to better things, you created something distorted and evil.  I am sure you sleep well at night...

My faith lies with the good guys....am sure you remember when you were one?  Follow the yellow brick road back to humanity, George, and leave the good doers alone.

Gee, Mr. Policeman, can you explain why so many people swear up and down they told the truth but were found to be deceptive? Are you that much of a Pollyanna about other things in life? And is it true you're probably an E-5 military policeman polygrapher-wannabe?

Quote:


Not surprising that a polygrapher would lie, is it ??? 
And just as typical that a polygrapher would not have the smarts to engage in a little proxy-jumping to cover their tracks so they aren't discovered.

Quote:


Barry P,

Actually, that which is stated in DoDPI's Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET) document is consistent with that which is stated in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Your polygrapher's assertion that "they changed their preemployment test all the time and especially because of 9/11" is a lie. Although minor details like question order, or the precise wording of questions, may vary to some extent, CQT polygraphy has not undergone any significant change in decades.

In addition, your earlier suggestion that the DoDPI LEPET document "is out of date or maybe is not the real thing or is some hoax" is unfounded. The document is not out of date. It is quite current (January 2002), and was received from an unimpeachable source. It is my understanding that the public release of this document has created quite a stir in the polygraph community.

It should be noted that "Policeman's" first message in this thread was posted from an IP address that resolves to "webcache.jackson.army.mil."

Fort Jackson, South Carolina is the home of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.

Policeman's posting, in which he concludes, "I am certain that the test works just like the examiner told me it would" seems likely to be a forgery posted by a polygrapher at DoDPI.

-- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Not long ago, I was told about this web site and did visit it a couple of times before I took my test. To be perfectly objective, I think I need to talk about my experience.  My examiner (I applied for a job with a police department in the Eastern US) was a retired government examiner and had been on this police department for a number of years.  Although I was skeptical, I had done some soul searching and made up my mind that I was going to be truthful and not do anything that would screw up my chances.  I told the examiner of a couple of "youthful indescretions" and even expressed to him that I was concerned that these lapses would disqualify me.  He asked me if I was still doing these things (they involved alcohol and marijuana) and I told him no (which was a truthful answer).  We talked for about an hour and actually I felt pretty comfortable about the process, even though I felt bad about telling him about the things I had done and was sure it was going to cause problems.  Well, guess what?...It did not.  The examiner was very professional, he went over all of the questions with me, I never felt that I was being tricked, although I did not quite understand the business with the numbers test. He started any question about my background with "Besides what we talked about" and I knew that I had told him everything I had done, but explained to him that I always wanted to be a police officer.  He did comment that it was unusual for someone to talk about their past like I did, but said he was glad I did.  Anyway, I have passed the test and am now about to start my career as a police officer.  I just wanted others to know that because it isn't hopeless.  I get that impression when I read what some people say here, but it just wasn't the case with me.  I wish others could have the experience I did. I for one am glad that I took the test as I planned to and I am certain that the test works just like the examiner told me it would.

Not long ago, I was told about this web site and did visit it a couple of times before I took my test. To be perfectly objective, I think I need to talk about my experience.  My examiner (I applied for a job with a police department in the Eastern US) was a retired government examiner and had been on this police department for a number of years.  Although I was skeptical, I had done some soul searching and made up my mind that I was going to be truthful and not do anything that would screw up my chances.  I told the examiner of a couple of "youthful indescretions" and even expressed to him that I was concerned that these lapses would disqualify me.  He asked me if I was still doing these things (they involved alcohol and marijuana) and I told him no (which was a truthful answer).  We talked for about an hour and actually I felt pretty comfortable about the process, even though I felt bad about telling him about the things I had done and was sure it was going to cause problems.  Well, guess what?...It did not.  The examiner was very professional, he went over all of the questions with me, I never felt that I was being tricked, although I did not quite understand the business with the numbers test. He started any question about my background with "Besides what we talked about" and I knew that I had told him everything I had done, but explained to him that I always wanted to be a police officer.  He did comment that it was unusual for someone to talk about their past like I did, but said he was glad I did.  Anyway, I have passed the test and am now about to start my career as a police officer.  I just wanted others to know that because it isn't hopeless.  I get that impression when I read what some people say here, but it just wasn't the case with me.  I wish others could have the experience I did. I for one am glad that I took the test as I planned to and I am certain that the test works just like the examiner told me it would.

Hi

It was a long test.  I thought it would be just like the book but that was not true-the guy said they dont care about cheating and the book said that was a big deal, the guy said they don't care if i respond a few times to any question, only if it is every question, they said they changed their preemployment test all the time and especially because of 9/11, they said nothing about lieing when i was younger.  The questions about controls were different and i did not recognize the other questions at all.  Maybe I got a different test but that book should have been closer.  Your book was better.

Barry P.,

How did your pre-employment polygraph examination differ from that which is described in DoDPI's Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test document?

I liked the book, easy to understand.  Unfortunately, I think it is out of date or maybe is not the real thing or is some hoax.  I took a pre-employ poly last week for federal job and it was not too helpful - questions were totally differently worded and i did not get the sense it was the same test at all....so I just stuck with the countermeasures when i i.d.'d controls.  Not sure if it worked but am supposed to hear something soon.  Lie behind book is the best.  Thanks

Doud13299 and others,

You are quite correct to categorize George’s find (the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf)) as nice…it is quite nice indeed.  In fact, I believe it is the first thing any reader coming to this site should read.  I say that not inasmuch as it provides the background and the solution(s) to the problems and challenges raised within the document (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (TLBLD) does that quite nicely), but no other polygraph document or text that I have seen in a public forum quite as clearly and succinctly and from the horse’s own mouth (and horse’s perspective) lays out the lies (not only the lies but the instruction on how and when to lie and/or mislead and misinform), misrepresentations, and the script for what you will see in your polygraph examination.  This is an absolute must read for all who will face a law enforcement polygraph screening examination and contains a ready-made case for why these sorts of examinations should be ended .  

As was pointed out in a previous message board post, the appendices of this document quite nicely provide for you the sequences of questions that you will (perhaps "would have" to the extent it can be modified) see in the two major types of screening examinations performed and in particular provide you with the labeled control/comparison questions (and alternative comparison questions contained in a separate appendix) that you will augment responses to via methods described in TLBLD.  I can not recommend too strongly for a reader anticipating being a polygraph examinee this document for your careful attention.  Furthermore I would recommend to George, Gino and others who have the ability to widely disseminate this material that it be put (with any copyright protections in mind) in as accessible a format as possible for readers to download and dissect (perhaps making the individual appendices one page html handouts/mail-outs/posters?).  Great work, George!

doud13299 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 6:56am:

doud,

The document is a scanned graphics image which is printer memory resource intensive. You might try changing some of the printer settings. Consider draft mode. What printer, OS, and system memory are you running?

-Marty

Nice find George! I have tried to print the DoDPI-LEPET but have been unable to. My computer freezes everytime I try to print. Help!

Thanks.

I think the fact that Drew is the point man on the new magic "lie detector" is a very good motive for him to discredit the polygraph.

Quote:


Temper, temper now Mr. Guest.  All I asked for was a credible source that showed Dr. Richardson was trying to discredit the polygraph in order to "sell everyone his new miracle machine" (your words).  Your "source" does nothing to back up this claim.   

Could it be that Dr. Richardson is possibly a man of integrity, that saw the polygraph for what it really is?  If you think his challenge is bogus, then why don't you step up to the plate, and call his bluff?  Just think......you could represent the entire polygraph community, and really put people like that pesky George and Dr. Richardson in their place.  With your hyper-accurate methods of detecting countermeasures, you could really embarass George, and shut down this damn site once and for all!!!  DODPI would be so proud of you that they would probably erect a bronze statue (just like Rocky in Philly) in front of "The Institute."  You would be .................immortal!!!

Too stupid for words?  Try putting a few "words" together in a coherent sentence that actually contributes to the discussion, instead of bashing another person's integrity.  If you have proof of the polygraph's accuracy, and of those hyper-accurate countermeasure detecting methods, please post them here.  I would love to see the scientific evidence. 

Thanks.

Kona   

Quote:

The device Drew is associated with does not detect lies, truth or even "deception."  According to its inventor it was designed to detect the presence or absence of specific knowledge. While not very useful for screening it might even be useful for detecting knowledge about CM's - an intriguing thought. However, it can't tell whether a person with that knowledge decided to use it.

-Marty

Kona wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 4:12am:


You people are too stupid for words, but here is your "source".  http://www.brainwavescience.com/DrewBio.php

Quote:


What is your source for this little pearl of knowledge? 
Why is it a good bet that he is a liar?  Because he has the audacity to question the validity of the almighty polygraph?   

Based on George's past service to our country in the intel field for nearly 20 years (The Army, The FBI, and The LAPD), I truly believe that he is an honorable man, and a victim of a false positive on his polygraph examination.  To what part of George's "shady" past do you base your opinion?      

Quote:


That was a very well thought out, provocative response.  What's next, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Quote:


You've got that right.  No polygraph examiner would risk looking like an incompetent, clueless fool in front of the whole world.  The only thing phoney in Dr. Richardson's challenge would be a polygraph examiner attempting to pass off his skill as "science." 

Quote:


Source please.  You sure like to sling mud at people without any credible source to back up what's flowing out of your piehole.  Why don't you try posting some proof with all your vile accusations?  Oh, that's right, you can't because it's all the rantings of a pathetic,  angry little man whose profession is based on deceit.   

You have a real nice day.

Kona

Guest,

what a lovely post. 

I think that it was the FBI director who asked Dr. Drew go to polygraph school, and conduct a study of the polygraph in general. 

If the director  of the FBI did not want his little gizmo doubted, then he should not have asked to have it studied.

The fact that the National Academy of sciences came to the same conclusion as Dr. Drew about the faulty nature of the polygraph is quite telling....

And so is your anger.

suethem wrote on Mar 5^th, 2004 at 8:14am:


Hey Sue, why don't you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full first.  No one is going to take up Drew's phoney "challenge".  Besides Drew is too busy inventing a new "lie detector".  Which probably explains why he is trying to discredit the old one.  That way he can sell everyone his new miracle machine.

Guest,

That's a great come back.  I take it that you did not bother to read any of the sources, which all confirm the same point-  that the polygraph is a mess.

No sympathy for the victims of false positives-  you must being in the poly business.

If we sent our soldiers out to fight with defective equipment would you not be pissed?

Same thing here

We are arming our LE/Intell folks with a defective product, sold by uncaring conmen who see national security as market place for their crap....

I think George has shown his courage and great determination by exposing polygraphy regardless of the obvious consequences to his career.

I wish that a polygrapher would show that kind of moxy and take Dr. Drew's challenge, but when your dealing with jellyfish.....

how about me? i failed and was honest, did i get what i deserved mr. guest man.  No one intends for criminals to pass, only for the innocent to not fail