A 23-page Department of Defense Polygraph Institute document dated January 2002 outlining procedures for the administration of pre-employment polygraph examinations for law enforcement applicants may be downloaded as a 909kb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf

Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

Quote:

George, Drew,

This is a bombshell.  The FBI continues to have complete faith in the polygraph and is intending to randomly try to polygraph existing employees (what percentage per year is still up in limbo).  Since I assume that there are not specific incidents involved, they will have to use a pre-screening format which all examiners are familiar with.  Imagine the irritation to an examinee after a fellow employee (polygraph examiner) blatantly lies about the questions only to read this release later (or worse, before).

This again is detrimental to moral and thus hurting this country's leading agency against another terrorist attack.   It serves as yet another distraction to the task at hand.

I wonder how many will take a photocopy into the exam room with them and how the examiner would handle such a fiasco?

Regards

For those of you who like to read the last chapter of a book first, you can skip to appendices E (security and counterintelligence questions) and F (suitability questions).  Although the document mentions a rather simple minded color coding scheme for polygraph operators (relevant questions are marked “red” and comparison questions are marked “green”—sounds like the same intellectual giants at Homeland Security who gave us “orange” and “yellow”), DoDPI has even gone one step further for the color blind and intellectually challenged—they have even labeled the questions (by type) for us in these two appendices. It would appear from George’s book, that all one needs do is to practice and produce reactions to those questions labeled “comparison” on the two lists (#s 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 on the first list (appendix E) and #s 3, 5, 8, and 10 on the second list (appendix F)).  Note that they have gone one step further and provided us with the appropriate acceptable “yes” and “no” answers to these questions (gee..maybe they are swell guys and gals after all….NOT!).  Although these questions and their order will no doubt be changed, you can at least get some practice recognizing what a comparison question is and producing a reaction to it by using these lists.  Also look at appendix D for a list of comparison questions that might be substituted for the ones in these two lists. Oh, and also, if you read the whole document and see how many times you will have been lied to by the time you get to these lists in your “test” you will have the motivation to practice well.

Amazed,

Thanks to George we know the 'truth' about the polygraph!!

Did you read the National Academy of Sciences study?

Did you read the testimony of former FBI Lab supervisor Dr Drew Richardson?

Did you read the DODPI document?

And you still think that the polygraph is valid?????

Trembling Woods is now taking 'guests' , I'll call and book you a room.

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

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.

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

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