Add Poll
Options: Text Color Split Pie
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
Topic Summary - Displaying 13 post(s).
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Feb 22nd, 2009 at 8:39am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
pailryder wrote on Feb 21st, 2009 at 5:52pm:
She, however, does not blame or hate the RC.  

She may not blame or hate the Red Cross, but does she believe the testing procedure is valid?  If she heard from a large number of other regular blood donors that they, too, had been victims of a false positive would she mindlessly accept the word of a profession that earned its collective living from testing blood for STD's?

If the National Academy of Sciences conducted a research study of the blood testing method and found it to be without solid scientific basis, would she assume they had ulterior motives and choose not to believe them?
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 22nd, 2009 at 6:31am
  Mark & Quote
Lastly, consider that these same people are being unjustly shunned because of the inaccurate results of this test, so much that some are even considered criminals despite their being innocent.

And in my case, I held a TS/SCI for close to twenty years as a Navy linguist and made it through four periodic security updates.  Retired as a linguist in good standing.  So what, I guy serves his country for 20 years, no problems, holds a top clearance, retires, then becomes a spy?  it could happen, but not likely, and I'm sure an experienced investigator could have found the accusations to be baseless.  All based on a polygraph interrogation with no follow up?  And NSA submitted a security referral to the FBI concerning what came out in my polygraph.  They investigated me and found NOTHING!   And I submitted a FOIA with them, and was told there is no file on me.

After failing the polygraph my reputation was ruined, and I ended up with people I've known and worked with for years think I'm some sort of spy for Taiwan!  With only a few exceptions, the only old SIGINT chronies who will still talk to me are people who were also false positivized.  Not that there were a lot of people who would talk with me before!   Sad 

So when I say watch what you say during a polygraph interrogation I speak from experience.  And it don't take much to come out of your mouth, under the right circumstances, for it to be twisted and distort to screw you!  They will develop the plot as they go along.  Oh, and it doesn't help if you rip the straps off during the test like I did either!   Cheesy

But at least I get to retire in Hawaii!  The drinking fountains here all contain pineapple juice. Did you know that! 

Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Feb 22nd, 2009 at 12:04am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

Actually the worst part was the six week wait to find out.  Imagine.
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Feb 21st, 2009 at 11:54pm
  Mark & Quote

So the worse your wife has to endure is no longer being able to donate blood.

Now imagine that the chance of getting a false positive has increased significantly. So much so that people are constantly complaining about having failed this test although they shouldn't have. Also, because of misplaced faith in this test, false negatives are prominent and many people who should fail this test aren't, allowing them opportunities they shouldn't have. Next, imagine that the false positives people are getting are destroying their chance to work in positions that they have striven to occupy for many years because a large number of organizations require candidates pass this test before getting hired. Lastly, consider that these same people are being unjustly shunned because of the inaccurate results of this test, so much that some are even considered criminals despite their being innocent. To top it all off, this test that so many people rely on has been condemned by every major scientific body to be inaccurate, unreliable and invalid. Yet, organizations continue to rely on this test and people's lives continue to be hurt.

Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 21st, 2009 at 6:59pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

I am familiar with that saying.  In fact, I was going to use it!  Maybe because of all the stuff about Lincoln lately on the History Channel.

If people would just realize, as stated by that attorney on the above link, that the polygrapnh is not about scientifically measuring the veracity of their answers to a set of questions by being hooked up to some intimidating machine, but, rather, a cleverly disguised interrogation, that alone, would be a helpful first step.  As it stands, and this applies to me when I had my first experience, people go in totally believing in the machine and wanting to cooperate in each and every way, naively believing the polygrapher when they say "I'm here to help you through this process.    You've got to open up and let me help you."

People need their "cherry popped" before they being subjected to this process.

Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Feb 21st, 2009 at 5:52pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Mr Cullen

In college my wife and I started taking part in Red Cross blood drives and had supported RC with blood, money and time for many years.  Not long ago she donated and received a letter requesting she see a specalist at a well known medical center as a blood screen indicated she was a carrier of a sexually transmitted virus similiar to HIV but more rare and deadly.  We went, of course I had to test, and a long, long month later we returned for the results.  Her initial screening test was a false positive.

The Kicker

My wife then received a letter from the RC warning her never to attempt to donate blood again as her name was on a list of potential carriers and would not be removed, even though a result of a false positive.

She, however, does not blame or hate the RC.
Posted by: Drew Richardson
Posted on: Feb 21st, 2009 at 1:39pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

The example you provided in which Dr. Maschke truthfully denied involvement in drug dealing would indeed (as pailryder indicated) be failure on the part of the polygraph examiner to detect the truthfulness of Dr. Maschke's denial(s).  The rub comes with the implied significance of such an error.  To Dr. Maschke and others similarly victimized this is the main and all encompassing event.  To in any way minimize such an occurrence (by offering it along with some perceived success at detecting lies on other occasions) resembles the oft-told story of one asking Mrs. Lincoln, "Other than what happened last night, did you enjoy the performance at Ford's Theatre?"

Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2009 at 9:51pm
  Mark & Quote
Lie detection we do pretty good, truth verification is more difficult...

If I remember his personal statement correctly, FBI polygraphers accused GM of "lying" when he denied being a major drug dealer.   Detecting a lie that wasn't even there (unless you actually believe GM is a major drug dealer).  Also, the "lie detectors" at the CIA concluded that Aldrich Eames WASN'T  "lying" to them either, and that he wasn't a major security risk.

"Lie detection" versus "truth verification".  Sounds somewhat like splitting hairs.  If you conclude somebody is a liar, when he/she is telling the "truth", you have  neither  "detected a lie", nor  have you "verified the truth".  If you accuse somebody of lying, and they ARE lying, you have BOTH "detected a lie" AND "verified the truth that they are lying".  I think "Boolean logic" may apply here.  

If you are saying that a polygraph interrogation is good at eliciting disqualifying admissions, I agree.  The problem is when polygraphers see a "boogie man" that is not really there.  The ones I've dealt with would make excellent fiction writers.  That is why I say, answer the specific, unambiguous relevant questions truthfully, and emphatically, but don't engage in "plot development" with the examiner because he/she has FALSELY claimed you are lying when you are not!  If there is really nothing bothering you about your ANSWER to a relevant question, believe your own mind, and not the machine. The less you say about the relevant questions, the better.   Don't say anything that the interrogator can twist, distort, blow out of proportion in order to make a castle out of a straw hat.

People have requested FOIA info, and are consequently shocked at the bogus and distorted crap polygraphers have put into their file.  If you are dealing with somebody who is going to distort what you say, it's better to say as little as possible.  And, as you'd expected, interrogators try to get you to "open up" to the greatest extent possible.  Wonder why?  It is an inherently contentious process.  The applicant's and examiner's best interests are inherently in opposition.


Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2009 at 6:30pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

An existing employee CAN NOT be fired based on a chart alone.  That is right out of the DOD review board manual.  The admissions they make during the polygraph, no matter how distorted by the polygrapher, CAN be used to fire them.

Polygraphers, especially with applicants, do exactly what the attorney in the link suggests.  They take innocent disclosures blow them out of proportion, or otherwise distort things, and before you know it, an innocent applicant is being made into bloody drug dealer or international spy!  You of all people should know this.

It is important NOT to let the polygrapher do this.  Being failed by chart alone is bad enough, having things you said twisted and distorted and have your reputation unfairly ruined is worse. 

Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2009 at 11:37am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

Well stated, sir, I hope we are listening.  Lie detection we do pretty good, truth verification is more difficult, but the use of cm by the otherwise truthful increases the risk of a misclassification and truly offers no protection against error.  Best advice--leave the cm to the guilty.  
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2009 at 9:19am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
In my own experiences, it was the incorrect guesses of the polygraph examiners that screwed me over, because I didn't make any disqualifying admissions.  I had nothing too bad to admit, and what I did have to admit to I had already disclosed long before the polygraph process.

I'm sure a number of people are disqualified during the polygraph because they make damaging admissions which they had concealed up to that point, but I don't really have an issue with that.  When there are no damaging admissions and the examiner takes a guess as to whether the applicant is lying or truthful, that's where the psuedoscientific aspect of the polygraph comes into play, and therein lies my problem with the use of the polygraph.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2009 at 7:44am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 20th, 2009 at 7:05am:
He pretty much says what I have been saying about the fact that it is NOTthe "chart readings", but rather, "what you disclose" that will screw you up when it comes to the polygraph.


My own experience, and that of many others, indicates that you are dead wrong about this. While the polygrapher's goal is indeed to obtain information, those facing polygraph screening most certainly can face adverse consequences based on polygraph chart readings alone. No damaging or disqualifying disclosure is necessary. (If such were the case, I might not object to polygraph screening.)
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2009 at 7:05am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

The above is an excellent site of an attorney who specializes in protecting the employment of government workers required to take the polygraph.

He pretty much says what I have been saying about the fact that it is NOT  the "chart readings", but rather, "what you disclose" that will screw you up when it comes to the polygraph.  This explains why polygraph interrogators focus so much on "getting things off your chest", "writing down everything that might be bothering your"...etc, during polygraph interrogations.  This is precisely NOT what you should do, according to this attorney!  Who are YOU going to believe?

Note, it is primarily advice for EXISTING employees subject to periodic polygraphs.  But job applicants would be well advised to check it out!