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.

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.   

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.   

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.

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

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.

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.

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.