AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - Dupe Admits to smoking a dube.

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Share Your Polygraph or CVSA Experience › Dupe Admits to smoking a dube.

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: [1] 2

Add Poll

Send Topic

Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. (Read 12957 times)

sweatin Guest	Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. May 26^th, 2004 at 1:55am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I recently had a pre-employment polygraph for an intelligence/security organization. I was very naive of this process beforehand, and just thought the best approach was honesty. Due to my ignorance of this procedure, I made a few admissions during the "pre-test" phase, one of which was potentially very damaging to my chances. Specifically, I admitted to a use of marijuana about two years ago, which I had not indicated on paperwork. Probably the worst thing about this was that I already have a security clearance required by my present job, and had it when I had my lapse in judgement. My concern is not so much being considered further for employment with the organization as it is that I could potentially lose my security clearance for this admission that the polygrapher duped out of me because of my ignorance. I was wondering about this: Suppose I call the organization in question and rescind my employment application before the adjudicator gets the chance to shut me down? What effect might that have on the potential consequences of my situation?


	IP Logged

Bill Crider Very Senior User Offline Posts: 213 Joined: Mar 26^th, 2004	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #1 - May 26^th, 2004 at 3:14am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	i dont see how you were duped. you admitted to something that you did that may be grounds for disqualification. you have to live with your decision to smoke that weed. its not about how to beat the system, its about innocent people getting F@#-ed by bogus polygraphs


	IP Logged

triple x Very Senior User Offline Fear what you cannot see... Posts: 209 Location: USA Joined: Oct 16^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #2 - May 26^th, 2004 at 4:01am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	sweatin, [You wrote] "I admitted to a use of marijuana about two years ago, which I had not indicated on paperwork." Although I do not know which specific intelligence/security agency to which you applied for employment, however, in another thread I previously discussed the FBI’s drug policy criteria The FBI clearly has a minimum acceptable parameter for drug use, within 3-years… That being said, I’m not familiar with other intelligence/security agencies such as the CIA or NSA regarding established drug use policy criteria. However, I would assume certain intelligence agencies drug criteria are at a minimum equal to that of the FBI. It is also plausible that other agencies drug policy exceeds [more stringent] that of the FBI. In short, your admission to the use of marijuana within the last two years, and failing to disclose this information [slight oversight] within your background investigation application, clearly put you at great risk for disqualification. Triple x


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #3 - May 26^th, 2004 at 3:28pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Bill Crider wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 3:14am: i dont see how you were duped. you admitted to something that you did that may be grounds for disqualification. you have to live with your decision to smoke that weed. its not about how to beat the system, its about innocent people getting F@#-ed by bogus polygraphs I was duped because lie detectors can NOT detect lies, and had I known this, I would have NEVER admitted to anything. In short, they were forced to repeatedly lie to me in order to get me to admit to anything. Why is it unacceptable for me to conceal anything from them, but yet they should get a pass when lying to me? I don't get it. Honestly, at this point I could not care less if they want to hire me or don't. I will not be taking the job if it's offered, as I refuse to put myself in a compromised employment situation with my government owning me as an indentured servant. I would have been taking a serious pay cut anyway, as my COE offered me significantly less than I currently make. It was foolish of me to even pursue this employment opportunity as I've jeopordized my current job by doing so, ex post facto. My only concern is whether this failed process is going to screw up my current security clearance and jeopordize my current employment situation. Other than that, screw 'em ... I don't want the job anymore. On a side note, the reason our national security is in such a shambles is because the Government can't afford to pay quality people what they're worth, and when one steps up to offer assistance they trip him up and hire somebody that knows how to beat the machine. But I digress...


	IP Logged

Bill Crider Very Senior User Offline Posts: 213 Joined: Mar 26^th, 2004	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #4 - May 26^th, 2004 at 4:02pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	because of my experience, I am sympthetic to your anger over the hyprocrisy of the polygraph situation. However, you, by your own admission, violated a drug policy. in this case, the polygraph did what is supposed to, even if it involves trickery and was not related to the physical charts. i personally am not against the poly as a tool among many. where it is used to elicit a confession, it is useful. it is absurd to use it as an absolute standard of esatblishing "truth" to the exclusion of all other evidence and investigation.


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube Reply #5 - May 26^th, 2004 at 5:15pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Bill Crider wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 4:02pm: because of my experience, I am sympthetic to your anger over the hyprocrisy of the polygraph situation. However, you, by your own admission, violated a drug policy. in this case, the polygraph did what is supposed to, even if it involves trickery and was not related to the physical charts. i personally am not against the poly as a tool among many. where it is used to elicit a confession, it is useful. it is absurd to use it as an absolute standard of esatblishing "truth" to the exclusion of all other evidence and investigation. I'm glad to see that you now agree with me that I was duped into making a substantive admission. Quite a change from your last post claiming you were not able to recognize that I was "duped". Considering now that you've admitted to being wrong once already in this thread, maybe you'll be able to admit to being wrong twice? Let's find out... The so-called "policy" that I admitted to being in violation of is utter-bunk in itself. How can you look into someone's soul and claim he or she is not trustworthy when they freely admit to you their transgressions? Especially when it's something as slight as having smoked a single joint? Truth is, YOU CAN'T! But to eliminate someone from the employment process based on an extorted admission during a polygraph, while knowing that the process is beyond problematic and that it is likely others (who are far, far worse) are most likely seeping through the cracks is ... patently absurd! I do not know that I have been eliminated from the employment process ... yet. I have tremendous qualifications that make it likely they will be willing to work with me in this situation, provided it is properly adjucated and they just don't throw my paperwork out based on this one admission. Even now, after the fact, I am confident I did the right thing in being honest, and believe if they don't offer me the postion they are the fools that the media makes them out to be. That may sound like I have a big ego, and I most certainly do. But the truth is the truth. Anyway, as I previously mentioned, it is not likely now that I would even accept the postion at this point, having been mal-treated and conned and placed in a position of duress. Why should I want to work under those conditions? The position I was offered sounds extremely exciting, but the job itself requires me to lie to friends, family, and to violate the laws of foreign nations. All of this for an Agency that would treat me poorly and place me under duress for being honest and admitting my guilt? Again, patently absurd...


	IP Logged

Bill Crider Very Senior User Offline Posts: 213 Joined: Mar 26^th, 2004	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #6 - May 26^th, 2004 at 5:53pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	im not agreeing that you were duped. the hyporcisy I refer to is the fact that they must deceive you for their machine to "work" and that you must lie for it to be scored to your advantage. your argument basically is, I would not have admitted to it had i known their method for uncovering the truth is flawed. one is never "duped" into making a truthful substantive admission. you are by normal ethical standards, REQUIRED to have candor about potentially DQ-ing information, regardless of what they may or may not do to try to get you to admit to it. the fact that you WERE lying or willing to lie gives the poly community its mandate to uphold the status quo. You are a poster child for the polygraph community when you say "I would not have admitted to anything had it not been for the polygraph" many of the pro polygraph sites will say that 85% of the people who fail will admit to something. if they can psych you out into admitting something, more power to them. its no different than using interrogation techniques such as being falsely sympathetic or trying to confuse a lying person by re-angling the questions over and over unti the lie breaks down.


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #7 - May 26^th, 2004 at 6:57pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	The logic upon which you base your position is about as circular as a lunar orbit. It is basically: “Polygraphers must lie to you in order to find out if your are lying, and therefore they are not “duping” you. As long as there are people willing to lie applying for Government jobs, polygraphy is justified.” You could use a refresher course in deductive reasoning and logic. Of course I would not have made a substantive admission if I knew beforehand that it was implausible for a polygraph to discern a lie. Who would? Answer: “No one”. What would be one’s motivation for revealing information that knowingly would get him DQ’ed? Answer: “None”. This has little to do with whether or not someone is willing to lie to get a job. 99% of all people are willing to do that. In fact, as I pointed out, the very nature of the job in question requires a willingness to be deceptive. Hell, it should be a mandated requirement! What it has to do with is that both the process for determining deception and the criterion for DQ’ing based upon what amounts to be human instinct flawed. Yes, I took two drags off a joint two years ago and yes I did not disclose this relevant information until tricked into doing so. Now suppose I had was a mole trying to infiltrate a national security agency? Do you suppose I’d admit to that? Do you assume I wouldn’t know how to beat the box? Or perhaps I should just be an honest guy and not apply for a job? Get real. If you put my admission into perspective with those of Aldrich Ames, and the fact that I couldn’t get through a polygraph/interrogation but he could, you just might see the ridiculousness of it all I think. Not to mention the fact that I did eventually admit to it when confronted. Why would I do that? Guilt. A desire to be completely honest. I revealed it knowing quite well that it would likely get me DQ’ed. But does that get taken into consideration? Not likely. On someone like me, a polygraph test would only work once. I’ve completely lost my fear of the box, and I’m one of the good guys. Doubtful a person who was truly guilty of anything significant and who wasn’t gullible would reveal his crimes under the poly. If I were to get called back for a re-poly it would be a different story the second time around. I guarantee the charts would show “truth” and the polygrapher would get nothing of substance from me. If he failed me it would be based solely upon instinct.


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #8 - May 26^th, 2004 at 7:17pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	And furthermore, how exactly could a polygrapher justify his or her job, knowing quite well that they themselves could easily be "duped"? How could one live with ones self, knowing they may have put real criminals, moles, or miscreants into employment just by virtue of the fact that the polygraph process does in fact NOT really work? It makes no sense. If these people gave a squat about national security they'd resign their postions and go back to college to learn a legitimate profession...


	IP Logged

Bill Crider Very Senior User Offline Posts: 213 Joined: Mar 26^th, 2004	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #9 - May 26^th, 2004 at 7:43pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	ok, my last try.... polygraphers are duping you about how the polygraph really works. they are not duping you into an admission of something. it would only be duping if they said for example, only drug usage in the last 12 months is relevant and after you admitted to it, they told you the standard is actually 5 years. as for the quote about who would be honest about stuff. thats simple. A person of integrity does not apply for positions if they do not meet the drug usage standards. if you are willing to lie and rationalize just for your own advantage, you should not get the job.


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #10 - May 26^th, 2004 at 8:17pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Bill Crider wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 7:43pm: ok, my last try.... polygraphers are duping you about how the polygraph really works. they are not duping you into an admission of something. it would only be duping if they said for example, only drug usage in the last 12 months is relevant and after you admitted to it, they told you the standard is actually 5 years. as for the quote about who would be honest about stuff. thats simple. A person of integrity does not apply for positions if they do not meet the drug usage standards. if you are willing to lie and rationalize just for your own advantage, you should not get the job. Nope. Still don't see it. If a polygrapher tells you that the box is indicating deception, when it is in fact NOT, in an effort to coerce an admission... he's duping you. This is not a polygraph "examination" (or and "examination" of any kind for that matter), it is an interrogation. The whole polygraph process is a sham to dupe unsuspecting individuals who feel little if any guilt (becuase their crime is fairly innocuous and innocent in their own eyes) into confessing every last modicum so the polygrapher can be judge, jury, and executioner. The process is by it's very virtue a "dupe session", and the dupe most certainly can be (and routinely is) duped during the dupe session. And if anyone should know, it would be me, because you just so happen to be corresponding with a noted Grade-A "dupe" at this very moment. (Fool me once, shame on me...) And your answer about "who would be honest and stuff" is a bit vapid and lacking. There is very little reason TO LIE except for personal advantage. 99% of all people do it every single day. The job I applied for required it. It's not like I can't see the merits of a implementing a "lie detector" if it actually had the ability to detect lies. Such a machine does not exist though. What they use now victimizes the innocent (and the marginally guilty for that matter) and rewards the guilty. Ultimately though, you are correct. I LIED on my paperwork. I do not deserve the job (or the pay cut, or having to lie to my friends/family about my employment, or having to relocate to DC where I'd not be able to afford a home on the paltry sum they'd be paying me, or the DELMARVA traffic jams, or the requirement to violate the laws of foreign nations risking imprisonment in some third world hellhole, nor applying my decades of noted military and commercial experience in the field while working under the duress of an employer who could terminate me at any moment that the so-called lie detector says that I'm being "deceptive", nor any of the headaches). No, I don't deserve the job. You're absolutley right. We need someone with "integrity". We need the best of the best. We need the guy that cleans the Cincinnati Reds bus: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040519/news_lz1s19glry.html Give him the job. I'm sure he'd appreciate it!


	IP Logged

Anonymous Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #11 - May 26^th, 2004 at 8:53pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Sweatin, All of your arguments and hinting that you were probably trying to get a job with CIA aside, what exactly is your purpose in posting here? Forget sympathy or understanding - you lost that as soon as you mentioned the phrase "which I had not indicated on paperwork." Your implications that NO ONE applying for any of these jobs is within the stated drug policies is just plain stupid. Many people meet the suitability policies for a given agency and yet still get disqualified by the polygraph. Those people have my sympathy - not you. In any event, the polygraph is in place and is not going anywhere in the near future. You obviously feel very sorry for yourself because you were "duped." Bitching about it here won't change anything. If you admitted to nothing and were falsely labeled a liar, you might have other avenues to look into. But not only did you admit to smoking weed, you more importantly admitted to lying. Do you not see this? And finally... Quote: I do not deserve the job... or having to lie to my friends/family about my employment... or the requirement to violate the laws of foreign nations risking imprisonment in some third world hellhole... nor applying my decades of noted military and commercial experience in the field while working under the duress of an employer who could terminate me at any moment that the so-called lie detector says that I'm being "deceptive" I was wrong about CIA - you're applying to be in Under Siege 3, right? Steven Seagal's replacement, maybe? Are you crappity smacking kidding me? You're not impressing anyone with this bullshit man... If you're so qualified to be the new 007, why the crappity smack are you smoking the wacky weed while under a government granted security clearance? I guess all that military and commercial experience you mentioned doesn't cover common sense, does it?


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #12 - May 26^th, 2004 at 9:02pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Sweatin, All of your arguments and hinting that you were probably trying to get a job with CIA aside, what exactly is your purpose in posting here? blah, blah, blah... Why don't you read the original post I made at the begining of this thread and then answer my questions? I have a legitimate concern that I'm dealing with regarding this process and was looking for legitimate comments regarding it. I could give a hoot whether or not you are impressed, and I certainly could give two squirts whether or not you are sympathetic. My guess would be that this website is routinely trolled by Intelligence Agency polygraphers, and I was especially soliciting their opinions on my circumstances. As far as the rest of you cyber-freaks are concerned, I could give a bucket of warm rat piss what you think. If you have something constructive to say, then feel free. If not, step. Most of the rest of my engagement with pillpopper was satire I contrived out of boredom. He's a meodiocre debater at best. YOU, on the other hand bore me considerably.... <YAWN> ...


	IP Logged

sweatin Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #13 - May 26^th, 2004 at 9:20pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	As an aside, it's interesting to note the assumptions that have been concluded about me by the detractors in this thread. For instance, it has been assumed that I was applying for work with the CIA, that I admitted to smoking weed more times than the respective agency in question allows, that I failed the polygraph test, etc. ad nauseam. I almost feel like I'm getting boxed right here in this thread. Let me guess: You losers are polygraphers? Whoda thunk it? Is that what the government pays you spooks to do all day? Sit on your fat assess detracting from an internet message board? Pathetic really... Get your asses back to work! I ain't pay'n taxes for you to sit around gabbin' all day SPOOKS!


	IP Logged

Anonymous Guest	Re: Dupe Admits to smoking a dube. Reply #14 - May 26^th, 2004 at 10:11pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Even if just out of sheer boredom, you are quite involved with this thread wouldn't you say? I'm truly saddened that I don't live up to your expectations with regards to debating skills. I guess I see why pillpopper has apparently given up. You don't seem to get the point here - you intentionally chose to not disclose information relevant to employment suitability prior to your polygraph examination. Regardless of the reason, you chose to admit to this failure to disclose during your examination. I don't think anyone has really indicated that you were not within policy (altough based on the timeframe you indicated I'd be inclined to say you are not) but why is it so difficult to see that you LIED? Many agencies will work with you on issues liked drugs, incidents in earlier years, etc. One issue they won't work with you on, however, is lying. And that's what you did. Regardless of what role you THINK you might play were you to gain employment, even as a career liar as you imply, do you really think the employer wants you to lie to THEM? Anyway, I did give you the benefit of the doubt and reread your original post (see my prior post above, however, the one where I QUOTED a portion of your original post - see, I was paying attention!). After rereading, I find that you in fact do NOT have a legitimate concern. You lied during the process and you got caught. Although I don't agree with using the polygraph in pre-employment screening settings, it is currently used in that capacity and did just what its' advocates claim it can do - caught you in a lie. Tough shit man, move on... you're obviously quite gainfully employed now so just get over it - get over yourself as well...


	IP Logged

Pages: [1] 2

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Dupe Admits to smoking a dube.

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

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:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.