Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Constricting your sphincter (Read 50178 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #75 - Aug 23rd, 2002 at 5:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman wrote on Aug 13th, 2002 at 9:57pm:
Holy Writer's Cramp Beech,

You are one long winded dude.


In the future, I will remember that further explanations (after you question me and/or oversimplify and outright misstate my position) will be met with such comments. Another person might say words to the effect, "If you don't like my answers, don't ask the questions, chucklehead." I'd like to think I'm above such crass retorts though. Regardless, I will try to be more succinct in the future when I respond to your questions.

Quote:
First, I find it interesting that you would rely on a quote of someone with the character of Ames as fuel for your arguement.  Why not quote from Judas himself next time.


Rather than engaging in attacks on the man-- which is rather pointless, we all know he's a convicted spy-- why not argue the facts he asserts?

Quote:
Second, my point about the Walker clan was simply that they engaged in espionage, yet polygraph had no invovlement. To the best of my knowledge none of that particular group underwent a polygraph prior to their espionage related activities.


And thus, for the purposes of this discussion, is irrelevant. We are (or at least I thought we were) discussing the damage that can result when misguided bureaucracts rely IN PART upon the pseudo-scientific sham of polygraphy to detect spies. It would appear polygraphers bear no responsibility at all in the Walker case; such cannot be said for Mr. Ames and many others.

Quote:
The real point is, the system as a whole has to accept responsibility for these type individuals.  It's just too simple to blame it all on one small aspect of that system (polygraph).


I have never stated that polygraphy is solely to blame for the failure to detect Aldrich Ames' criminal activities. Numerous investigations took place in the wake of the Aldrich Ames case. Depending upon with whom you speak , Ames:

1. Passed his polygraphs
2. Did not pass his polygraphs
3. Passed his polygraphs, but showed indications of 'trouble' with financial areas of the exam that should have alerted interrogators to his espionage (and here I thought there were only three outcomes to a polygraph exam!)
4. Passed his polygraphs, but highly complex and secret computer algorithms applied to his charts AFTER he was caught reveal he did NOT pass his polygraphs
5. Passed his polygraphs with the help of secret Soviet countermeasure techniques

These are only a few of the opinions given by the pro-polygraph community... to me, that indicates a massive denial of responsibility at all (i.e., obfuscation and an ease with tailoring one's answer to fit the questioner). As to affixing blame, it is specious to say things like 'the system as a whole has to accept responsibility for these type individuals' and then run away when critics point to real, tangible solutions like the abolishment of polygraphy as a counter-intelligence screening tool. The 'whole' is comprised of 'parts', yes? No matter how large or small, polygraphy IS A PART and bears a corresponding amount of blame for the failure. Does anyone else here think it is ludicrous to point at spies who never underwent a polygraph interrogation as proof that polygraphy is essential to counter-intelligence screening?

Quote:
However simple solutions are sometimes favored by simpletons.


Here I will have to defer to your expertise, as I'm certain you are more conversant than I with matters simple.

Quote:
As for the spies who never took polygraphs, why don't "we" want to discuss them?  Could it be that there have been far more of them than ones who did undergo polygraphs?


Yes batman, in the whole of human history, the total number of spies who have been polygraphed (and passed) is I'm sure vastly smaller than the total number of spies. Hardly a thunderbolt observation.

Quote:
If this is the case could it then mean there is a systemic problem that goes far beyond polygraph?  Maybe it's just a bit too far for the likes of you to see, understand, or acknowledge.


Enlighten me, batman. How many times must I ask? You keep making omniscient reference to your superior ability to see the big picture, yet fail to deliver when asked to demonstrate that ability. Write as long a reply as you wish! My attention span is such that I will not insult your mindfulness to detail nor earnestness in wishing to have your thoughts understood.

Quote:
Finally, maybe the problems I cite are more important to the general public simply because they are more important.  You may be just too afraid to admit that something you have attached yourself so strongly to is not the number one concern of all America.


I don't believe I have ever stated that I'm concerned that the average American does not have the uses and abuses of polygraphy forefront in their mind. For what purpose to you now engage in this strawman argument?

Quote:
Believe me, when I interview the sexually assaulted young girl, polygraph is not foremost on her mind; unless of course it helps to nail her assailant.


Irrelevant to the topic at hand, and a rather heavy-handed attempt to pluck at heart strings. For every sexual assault victim you cite, I cite a polygrapher's interrogation of a sexual assault victim that results in a dismissal of their victimization when a DI occurs.
« Last Edit: Aug 24th, 2002 at 12:08am by beech trees »  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #76 - Sep 5th, 2002 at 2:19am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George
Thanks for remembering me. Believe it or not I hav'nt cared to log on for this period since I had work to do, which I found far more serious.  Reading the posts in my absence show me that not much has changed.
I guess I touched a nerve with you when I referenced your testimony before NAS.  I refer to your comments about providing a statement to your FBI inquisitors, explaining what was going through your mind when you failed your polygraph.  When I utilize this after a criminal wants to further explain (relax, I did'nt say you were a criminal) something he neglected to state up front in his initial interview, I call this an admission.  My understanding of this in your case is that it disqualified you.  Would you like to explain what was necessary to commit to paper as an excuse for a reaction, if you were completely candid on your application?  I am having a hard time painting the FBI as the reckless destroyer of qualified applicants as portrayed here.  Maybe your applicant statement could be posted on the site? FOIA put to good use?
You further refused to acknowledge the question line as put to you about "level or error", and dodged the questions/ comparisions about backgrounds being likewise flawed and unstandardized.  I found your testimony evasive.  My comments reflect that.  You can become comfortable with the idea that I do not care for your motives or your method.  To fail a polygraph unnecessarily is regrettable, to help those that would defeat our security process (as flawed as it is) in my view is criminal.  You do this because of hatred of a tool that you believe harmed you.  As a smart guy, you know many processes lack total effectiveness, diagnostic or otherwise- I named a few in an earlier post which you also dodged.  To say "its hard to live down a false positive" as a reason for abolishing polygraph is disingenuous.  Applicants failing unstandardized, flawed background checks holding thier heads high and feeling good about themselves?  Polygraph accorded undue weight? What agency do you work for again, and how would you have any idea of how an administer views these results (other than FBI)?  Sorry George, this is about you.  If you lost your security clearence there was cause.  My wife used to do security clearences for the Govt. (really beech)
And from what she has told me its quite a process not taken lightly, with many safeguards for the employee.

Let me just address all my friends:
Lets not get worked up about my credit rating or lack of one, I was having a back and forth with a person in the business.  I dont think It says anything but that I pay bills on time.  Sorry some felt I was trying to inflate my worth, actually I could care less.  I realize I am not among friends here as someone who does not fear the polygraph.

Star2be00.  What can I make of your comments, except you would not talk like that to me in person.  Heres your first free lesson in Law Enforcement: If you have to look right and left before you do something (or say something) dont do it.  Kicked in the face? Little late for that advice. I hope you will learn to watch your anger if you ever make it to the streets.  If these exchanges get you worked up, how about getting thrown up on? think about it...Hello!

My friend BT, who lacks credentials, but not vigor- you seem to be the resident defender of the spy line so here is a thought for you.  Do you think anything really comes out of the CIA in a completely unsanitized form? Do we have any idea (and would the CIA tell us) of polygraph success, or the deterrant effect that you folks would erode?  When I bring up a spy who was DI, George tells me that based on one account it looked like he became a spy after being wrongly found deceptive on a polygraph!  I thought the CIA polygraphed on hiring, and then every 5 years or so.  Why was a new case officer tested?.  Do you know? I dont -and I dont like to fill in blanks wondering or trying to advance a position. He had FBI sitting on his house because he might become a spy? He was not fired for being a drunk though, I promise you. 
Im pretty much done here, I leave like I began- not really expecting to change minds but looking for info.  Too many observers here are far too willing to take a statement of a frusturated applicant as gospel.  From having worked with applicants, I have found a reluctance on thier part (very natural) to disclose honestly every answer asked for.  Ours has over 200 questions.  So when I say people lie, I can back it up.  Sorry if that offends any of the breathless here, its just life.  Start living yours with objectivity, and you will find the "advice" here hollow and self serving.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #77 - Sep 5th, 2002 at 9:25am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The Breeze,

Let's see...

On 4 August, you accused me of having not told the truth in my FBI application:

Quote:
If you are holding back info from your recruiter like the founder here did, and you fail- maybe you should not be in law enforcement. Ask GM if there would be an antipolygraph site had he told the truth in all areas of his application and passed ?  The answer can only be "NO" which makes him the equivelent of a Sarah Brady.


When I corrected you, you wrote on 5 August:

Quote:
Since you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS.  When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed.  But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.


The same day, I asked you "where in my testimony before the NAS did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?"

Finally, on 4 September you have replied, but you still don't say where in my NAS testimony I indicated that I told anything but the truth. You write in relevant part:

Quote:
I guess I touched a nerve with you when I referenced your testimony before NAS.  I refer to your comments about providing a statement to your FBI inquisitors, explaining what was going through your mind when you failed your polygraph.  When I utilize this after a criminal wants to further explain (relax, I did'nt say you were a criminal) something he neglected to state up front in his initial interview, I call this an admission.  My understanding of this in your case is that it disqualified you.  Would you like to explain what was necessary to commit to paper as an excuse for a reaction, if you were completely candid on your application?  I am having a hard time painting the FBI as the reckless destroyer of qualified applicants as portrayed here.  Maybe your applicant statement could be posted on the site? FOIA put to good use?


Again, I answered all questions truthfully during my pre-employment polygraph examination. I withheld nothing. Nothing I said to my polygrapher when he asked what I was thinking of when a question was asked was in any way responsive to any of the questions asked. You have falsely accused me of lying and withholding information. Nowhere in my NAS testimony, or anywhere else, have I ever indicated that I was in any way untruthful in my FBI application. I wasn't.

Who told you that I was disqualified on the basis of a supposed admission? A whispering campaign in the polygraph community, perhaps? My FBI HQ file unambiguously states that it was the polygrapher's (erroneous) opinion that I was deceptive to all relevant questions that was the basis for terminating my application, and not any admission/confession.

You also write:

Quote:
You further refused to acknowledge the question line as put to you about "level or error", and dodged the questions/ comparisions about backgrounds being likewise flawed and unstandardized.  I found your testimony evasive.  My comments reflect that.


These are two questions to which I hadn't given much consideration before the NAS meeting. I allow that I didn't have well-considered answers, and perhaps should not have tried to answer them off-the-cuff. (I do think, however, that Professor Faigman did a fine job discussing the differences between polygraph screening and background investigations; I hope his remarks are audible on the recordings.) But this has nothing whatsoever to do with my truthfulness in my FBI application.

I spoke before the NAS to mainly to suggest questions that I think the committee needs to consider in writing its report. You'll find those questions here.

Quote:
You can become comfortable with the idea that I do not care for your motives or your method.


Your uncomfortableness with same cannot in any way justify your libeling me.

Quote:
To fail a polygraph unnecessarily is regrettable, to help those that would defeat our security process (as flawed as it is) in my view is criminal.


Our purpose here is to help truthful applicants to protect themselves against the very real danger of a false positive outcome. Is it a crime to tell the truth about polygraphs?

You also write:

Quote:
To say "its hard to live down a false positive" as a reason for abolishing polygraph is disingenuous.


How do you figure? It is indeed very hard to live down a false positive outcome. In most cases, it is simply not possible for the examinee to prove the negative proposition that he was not deceptive.

Quote:
Sorry George, this is about you.


You would like to make the debate about polygraphy be about me. But it's not. Even if I were a lying, drug-abusing spy and narcotrafficker who sought employment with the Bureau on personal instructions from Osamah bin Laden himself, it would have no bearing on the merits of the arguments I have made regarding polygraphy and polygraph policy.

Regarding the Howard spy case you write:

Quote:
When I bring up a spy who was DI, George tells me that based on one account it looked like he became a spy after being wrongly found deceptive on a polygraph!  I thought the CIA polygraphed on hiring, and then every 5 years or so.  Why was a new case officer tested?.  Do you know? I dont -and I dont like to fill in blanks wondering or trying to advance a position. He had FBI sitting on his house because he might become a spy? He was not fired for being a drunk though, I promise you.


You wear your ignorance of the Howard case like a badge of honor. You say you don't like to fill in blanks or try to advance a position, but you are advancing without evidence (indeed, against all reported accounts) the notion that Howard was spying for the Soviets while working for the CIA, but was caught by the polygraph.
« Last Edit: Sep 5th, 2002 at 10:56am by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #78 - Sep 5th, 2002 at 10:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The Breeze,

star2be wrote to you, quoting an earlier post of yours:

Quote:
"Whats wrong with public transportation?  Maybe MADD is a bad example since they are real victims, that have suffered through someone else's actions- not merely liars who did not get a job.  But you get the point."

Liars who did not get a job?? Who ever you are or think you are I suggest you watch you mouth. I don´t know if you´ve read any of the threads here concering people WHO DID NOT LIE AND FAILED THE POLYGRAPH... HELLO. I am going to be totally honest on my polygraph and if I fail people are going to hear about it... By the way you have no manners. Who are you to call anyone at all a liar?!! I also suggest you be carefull with what you say  , it could come back and kick you in the face. Lips Sealed


to which you replied:

Quote:
Star2be00.  What can I make of your comments, except you would not talk like that to me in person.  Heres your first free lesson in Law Enforcement: If you have to look right and left before you do something (or say something) dont do it.  Kicked in the face? Little late for that advice. I hope you will learn to watch your anger if you ever make it to the streets.  If these exchanges get you worked up, how about getting thrown up on? think about it...Hello!


On what basis do you say that star2be00 would not talk to you like that in person? Would you physically intimidate him/her?

Regardless of what star2be00 would or would not say to you in person, it appears that you would not make the libelous accusations you have made against me in person, since you even seem to be afraid to state such using your real name.

Wink
« Last Edit: Sep 5th, 2002 at 11:09am by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #79 - Sep 5th, 2002 at 3:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Sep 5th, 2002 at 2:19am:
My friend BT, who lacks credentials, but not vigor- you seem to be the resident defender of the spy line so here is a thought for you.  Do you think anything really comes out of the CIA in a completely unsanitized form?


You seem either incapable or unwilling to answer a simple yes or no question. You are quite good at trumpeting your own set of ethics as a shining example of intestinal fortitude, but how ethical is it to enter a discussion and then cut & run when the questions get tough? What does that say about the man behind the badge? I'll let others draw their own conclusions, but I have long ago reached mine about you.

In light of your recent insinuation that former head of counterintelligence Edward Curran is a liar, I will ask you to drop the Byzantine cloak-and-dagger vernacular like 'unsanitized' and simply answer the question below with a yes or no:

Yes or no: Former head of CIA's counterintelligence Edward Curran was intentionally lying when he stated in the following televised interview:

Quote:
Pelley: To your knowledge, in a routine screening, of the general population of agents or employees, has a spy ever been caught by a polygraph examination?

Curran: Not that I know of. Fairness to myself, by saying, you know, have you ever caught anybody, well, we haven't really polygraphed everybody either.


Yes or no please?

Finally, I find it a tad hypocritical that you would label me as 'lacking credentials' when it would appear by your repeated assertions that you have no knowledge of most of the hard facts in the Howard case.

If you feel any of the facts I have put forth in this discussion are incorrect, please feel free to dispute them with facts, not ad hominem arguments.
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #80 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 12:19am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Whomever:
Fascinating retorts and speculation about my personal courage.  As always, when I am on this site I have the overwhelming feeling of being surrounded by carping wannabees.  What you call cutting and running, I call doing my job, being on travel, even a brief stint in the ER for an accident injury and of course the general feeling that logging on and responding to such a group is so wasteful. (but interesting)
I wont answer tough questions? like the one I put to Beech Tree about his credentials and why does anyone need to respond to someone who has one source and starry eyes?....still waiting. You folks only answer me specifically when it suits you, or have you not noticed?
I dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do.  Plus its none of your business, and certainly does not diminish any point Im trying to make. I could care less what your real names are. Your faithfull share this preference if you will note.  I obviously do not have the time to devote here as you all do as I am gainfully employed- this is not evasion.  Who would oppress the innocent if I logged in all day?
And George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened.  I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
My comments to starwannabee are simple.  He portrayed an  aggressive tone twords me and only you G could turn that into me threatening him! How do you do that with a straight face?
You can see from my responses that I feel it useless to debate specific points with you, which means to you that I am vanquished.(but to me it means im simply bored) My specific points are there: ethics, process failure, backgrounds vs. polygraph, Credentials, GM's clearance issue, error rate evasion, spies and personal integrity.  This site is about retribution not information.  George would of been happily investigating crime scenes in Minot ND had he not failed, which in my world equels hypocrisy. I wonder if he would of became a polygrapher if the FBI asked him to? He knows quite well, (and has never responded to my point about various process failures) that nothing is absolute and we should not expect it from polygraph.  We simply cannot throw out everything that is not 100% or even 90%  without thought. You may as well start www.nocolonscreen.bs. people get harmed sometimes, by all sorts of tests- I wish it did'nt happen.
The overriding selfishness of the posters here speak volumes about where we are as a nation in my opinion. If the polygraph does not work in thier applicant screen, it should be abolished-even if it may catch a murderer next week.  Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning.
I will visit from time to time for reasons that are my own, feel free to spin that anyway you want.  Only the most rabid haters of this electonic gadget can dwell overlong here-
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Anonymous
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #81 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 1:55am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Breeze,

You write:

Quote:
...Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning...


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:
...I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...


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...

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Rick Thirde
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #82 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 3:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #83 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 7:20am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The Breeze,

In part you wrote:

Quote:
The overriding selfishness of the posters here speak volumes about where we are as a nation in my opinion. If the polygraph does not work in thier applicant screen, it should be abolished-even if it may catch a murderer next week. Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning.



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.  

« Last Edit: Sep 8th, 2002 at 8:11am by J.B. McCloughan »  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #84 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 7:49am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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 6th, 2002 at 12:19am:
I wont answer tough questions? like the one I put to Beech Tree about his credentials and why does anyone need to respond to someone who has one source and starry eyes?....still waiting. You folks only answer me specifically when it suits you, or have you not noticed?


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:
I dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do.  Plus its none of your business, and certainly does not diminish any point Im trying to make.


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:
And George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened.  I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


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
« Last Edit: Sep 6th, 2002 at 8:21pm by Skeptic »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #85 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 11:49am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The Breeze,

You write in part:

Quote:
And George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened.  I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


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:
I dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do.  Plus its none of your business...


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]


Shooting the Breeze


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]
« Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2002 at 11:35am by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #86 - Sep 6th, 2002 at 5:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Sep 6th, 2002 at 12:19am:
Whomever:
Fascinating retorts and speculation about my personal courage.  As always, when I am on this site I have the overwhelming feeling of being surrounded by carping wannabees.  What you call cutting and running, I call doing my job, being on travel, even a brief stint in the ER for an accident injury and of course the general feeling that logging on and responding to such a group is so wasteful. (but interesting)


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.
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Fred F.
Very Senior User
****
Offline


Get Educated.... Knowledge
is Power

Posts: 224
Joined: Apr 4th, 2001
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #87 - Sep 7th, 2002 at 3:00am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Quote:
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.’    





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.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #88 - Sep 8th, 2002 at 7:19am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Rick Thirde
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #89 - Sep 11th, 2002 at 5:05am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Constricting your sphincter

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
resize_wb
resize_hb







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:
X