I find it kind of funny that the INS requires those being naturalized to say:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

And those being commissioned to the armed forces and those taking office say it, yet the FBI does not. 

and beech trees, upon reading it further, it does sound as though I was taking a jab, but that wasn't my intent. I simply find it ironic that several oaths include this phrase, but for some reason the FBI does not. You actually brought that to my attention with your post.

Fred, 
Quote:

Does what he wants?

Quote:

Why does this raise a red flag? Apparently, some places haven't updated their equipment. I didn't even know there was such a thing as computerized polygraphs until mentioned on this board. And what does my security clearance have to do with a paper polygraph?

Quote:

I couldn't see the polygraph. I was facing a white wall, but could vaguely hear the needles moving over the paper. And was he a "senior" polygrapher? I don't know? He said he'd been in for 20 years, but how long of that time he did poly's, I couldn't tell you. He didn't tell me.

Quote:

Am I defending the polygraph here? Or am I saying that honesty is better than disception?

I'm only posting here for one reason. To tell people that visit your site that countermeasures aren't neccessary. I'm not saying I have vast experience with this subject, because I don't. But I am saying, that I am one person, that took a poly, told the truth, and passed. I didn't use any c/m's. 

I realize that the majority of the people that visit this site have failed a poly. I would say that the majority of them deserved to. Not all, but the majority. This is just my personal opinion after reading a lot of the posts. However, there are people out there, that have nothing to hide, that may come to this site and change their mind and use c/m's because of this site. (run on sentence, I know) Then they fail, because they did use c/m's. What do you tell these people? "Oh well, you chose to do so." 

I'm just giving those that come to this site another point of view. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't think Drew, George or Gino would argue with me on that. I believe that different points of view spark good discussions and bring life to a thread.

I hope I have answered some of your questions Fred, and if you could, please answer mine. I'm curious about the security clearance and use of an old polygraph in particular. Cheers.

Fred,

Although I do not have time for a long explanation, I will briefly address one of your comments from your last post.  You referred to antiquated polygraph and its abilities or lack there of.  I assume you were referring to the analog polygraph instrument.  Contrary to your beliefs, the analog instrument produces as good if not better physiological tracings in some of the components.  There are pros and cons to both instruments.

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Mar 7^th, 2002 at 7:05am:


J.B.

I cannot concur with your analogy. I have worked in the medical field for many years and have seen the impact of digital technology on medical care. Granted that mercury/analog gauged sphygmomanometer can still deliver a measurement that is reliable for screening and routine tests. When dealing with more critically ill patients that require precise monitoring of body functions, you seldom see analog equipment used. Most of EKG and EEG testing uses digital measurement for precision.

Can it be possible that polygraphy doesn't require precision measurement to be accurate? Is it also possible that the margin of error polygraphic testing  is very broad? 

I read you and Dr. Richardson discussing variance, How much variance is excusable?

Fred F.

Duc748 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2002 at 6:14pm:


Duc748,

I run XP now, I have no problems to report because XP is similiar to NT and thats what OS we run at the job. I do object to having my usage patterns downloaded to Microsoft every day. 

The computer may be able to detect smaller nuances in patterns than an analog machine. That is my opinion and it may be wrong as well. Just a thought. 

You also made a comment in another post comparing physicians and polygraphers making mistakes and not acheiving 100% accuarcy. Bear in mind that physicians spend 12 years from college to medical school to post graduate internships, residency, and fellowships. A polygrapher is trained in 8-10 weeks, and may or may not be college educated. A physician has to pass state boards to become licensed and also test to become board certified in their chosen specialty. Polygraphers don't have malpratice insurance because before every test they do, they have the examinee sign a RELEASE OF LIABILITY to release them from being responsible for the outcome of the test. 

Can you imagine having your personal physician requesting that you sign a release of liability before he examines you, performs surgical procedures, and interprets laboratory and other tests? that is a frightening scenario. 

Bottom Line, you can't compare a physician and a polygrapher, there is none

Fred F.

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Mar 12^th, 2002 at 7:08pm:


JB,

With the above quote in mind, what are acceptable variances to the polygraph process? Also what is the possibility that the variance can produce a negative effect on the results or alter the validity of the process?


Thanks

Fred F.

John_F

I couldn't say it any better than that!

I'm starting to doubt the validity of Duc's claims.
Like others have pointed out,  there is the plausible chance that the Duc is a total fraud.  His intent might solely be to scare people off from using effective countermeasures. 

Hell...I could claim I'm a 30 year veteran of the FBI for that matter!

But,  getting back to your point John...your statement is a good one (assuming this narrow-minded airhead is truly preparing for a career in the FBI).

It is the narrow-tracked mind that has helped deteriorate the effectiveness of the FBI.

When Duc first entered this board and posted his first message,  he didn't take the time to consider any other people's life experiences but HIS OWN.   

Like a popular fast-food commercial suggests,  "THINK OUTSIDE THE BUN!"