- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anonymous
- Mar 03, 2004, 11:46 PMIt is very apparant that Torpedo is NOT a polygraph examiner and only trying to get under everyone's skin. Don't entertain his comments anymore and continue putting the truth out there 
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Feb 17, 2004, 08:27 AMAPGodSpy,
You mention the Robert Hanssen matter and its bearing on polygraph exams used for national security purposes. My views on such were expressed at the time the matter became public knowledge in the following document, http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/richardson-memo-02-2001.shtml, which was prepared for the consideration of senior executives and policy makers in the FBI. My views on the subject remain the same some three years later. Interestingly enough, at the time (a few weeks later) when the FBI was considering and beginning to increase such (employee polygraph exams), the Director's National Press Office was unofficially but decidedly directing me to give off-the-record interviews to the media expressing my viewpoint. Clearly, as you indicated is true with your various and current points of contact, there is very serious doubt about such things in the midst of true believers.
You mention the Robert Hanssen matter and its bearing on polygraph exams used for national security purposes. My views on such were expressed at the time the matter became public knowledge in the following document, http://www.antipolygraph.org/documents/richardson-memo-02-2001.shtml, which was prepared for the consideration of senior executives and policy makers in the FBI. My views on the subject remain the same some three years later. Interestingly enough, at the time (a few weeks later) when the FBI was considering and beginning to increase such (employee polygraph exams), the Director's National Press Office was unofficially but decidedly directing me to give off-the-record interviews to the media expressing my viewpoint. Clearly, as you indicated is true with your various and current points of contact, there is very serious doubt about such things in the midst of true believers.
Posted by APGodSpy
- Feb 17, 2004, 04:58 AMOf course there are two sides to every coin and each side has valid reasons to believe in whether they are for or against polys. I have had no bad experiences with it but I have seen some great co-workers fall victim to it and have heard horror stories as well.
My experience in US intelligence and polys has left me pleased with what i have experienced. Maybe this is because I, myself, have had no problems with the systems in place such as polys. However, FBI CounterIntelligence Chief Robert Hanssen spied for the Soviets and Russians for over 20 years and we never caught him.
Is he somebody that should have been found out and uncovered by a poly or did he become this person after his polys. Could he have fooled the poly and knew how to answer? Who knows, but many of my colleagues are and were adamently opposed to polys. One such reason is Hanssen and innocent and honest candidates that did not make it in over the years because of bad polys.
My experience in US intelligence and polys has left me pleased with what i have experienced. Maybe this is because I, myself, have had no problems with the systems in place such as polys. However, FBI CounterIntelligence Chief Robert Hanssen spied for the Soviets and Russians for over 20 years and we never caught him.
Is he somebody that should have been found out and uncovered by a poly or did he become this person after his polys. Could he have fooled the poly and knew how to answer? Who knows, but many of my colleagues are and were adamently opposed to polys. One such reason is Hanssen and innocent and honest candidates that did not make it in over the years because of bad polys.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 22, 2004, 12:51 AMDear Anonymous,
Mr. Torpedo does believe in the polygraph as do many in the law enforcement "club" that have "passed" the test. He will defend it as any "cult" member as described in the NAS study will attest. I was inconclusive, deceptive, and non-deceptive, as I passed the the "FBI Gauntlet" of truthfulness. I am so sad that my eight years of very honorable military service, over ten years of federal law enforcement service, and lifetime of law abiding history would not be acceptable through multiple background checks. I never tried anything but to be truthful and was accused of countermeasures and deception. I will attest that the polygraph community does not know what deception or countermeasures are because I never used or had knowledge of countermeasures.
A good organization like the FBI is losing the confidence of many applicants and the public as a whole by denying the shortcomings of the pre-screening polygraphs. The FBI is a wonderful story of many dedicated people trying to better this country and the polygraph does not belong in such an organization.
Regards.
Mr. Torpedo does believe in the polygraph as do many in the law enforcement "club" that have "passed" the test. He will defend it as any "cult" member as described in the NAS study will attest. I was inconclusive, deceptive, and non-deceptive, as I passed the the "FBI Gauntlet" of truthfulness. I am so sad that my eight years of very honorable military service, over ten years of federal law enforcement service, and lifetime of law abiding history would not be acceptable through multiple background checks. I never tried anything but to be truthful and was accused of countermeasures and deception. I will attest that the polygraph community does not know what deception or countermeasures are because I never used or had knowledge of countermeasures.
A good organization like the FBI is losing the confidence of many applicants and the public as a whole by denying the shortcomings of the pre-screening polygraphs. The FBI is a wonderful story of many dedicated people trying to better this country and the polygraph does not belong in such an organization.
Regards.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 21, 2004, 07:16 PMTorpedo,
I do believe you have finally and completely lost it. At no point in my last post did I refer to the psyche (state of mind...tortured or otherwise) of those who have been victimized stemming from false positive polygraph results. Again, this has to do with factual circumstance (a false positive polygraph result), not a state of mind phenomenon. Your notion of one who might want/have an interest in seeing the source (where policy formulation begins) of his victimization as some sort of self prescribed therapy is equally bizarre. I am led to believe the location that you describe as "remote" is anything but, perhaps only a few blocks away from FBI Headquarters. Furthermore your rationale for such is rather shallow unless you were to suggest that any FBI examiner conducting polygraphs in Bureau Field Offices (presumably where the bulk of exams are conducted) needs to look for off-site examinee-friendly art gallery space in their local towns....injustices associated with polygraph screening aside, sounds like a great use of tax payer dollars to me....yeah right
I do believe you have finally and completely lost it. At no point in my last post did I refer to the psyche (state of mind...tortured or otherwise) of those who have been victimized stemming from false positive polygraph results. Again, this has to do with factual circumstance (a false positive polygraph result), not a state of mind phenomenon. Your notion of one who might want/have an interest in seeing the source (where policy formulation begins) of his victimization as some sort of self prescribed therapy is equally bizarre. I am led to believe the location that you describe as "remote" is anything but, perhaps only a few blocks away from FBI Headquarters. Furthermore your rationale for such is rather shallow unless you were to suggest that any FBI examiner conducting polygraphs in Bureau Field Offices (presumably where the bulk of exams are conducted) needs to look for off-site examinee-friendly art gallery space in their local towns....injustices associated with polygraph screening aside, sounds like a great use of tax payer dollars to me....yeah right
Posted by Torpedo
- Jan 21, 2004, 05:40 PMAnnoymous,
Surely you jest! Somehow you want anyone to believe that showing pictures of where a polygraph examination was taken is somehow therapeutic? Sorry my friend, but if a person is one that tender a rail, perhaps they need to find other work rather than the law enforcement work they could expect in the FBI. And just for your information, you make it sound as if the location has some special meaning. You might be surprised to learn that the government leases many, many buildings (which actually helps the economy), but my guess would be that some folks would not want to go into the FBI Headquarters and this remote setting tends to offer some comfort to those poor tortured soluls you describe.
Surely you jest! Somehow you want anyone to believe that showing pictures of where a polygraph examination was taken is somehow therapeutic? Sorry my friend, but if a person is one that tender a rail, perhaps they need to find other work rather than the law enforcement work they could expect in the FBI. And just for your information, you make it sound as if the location has some special meaning. You might be surprised to learn that the government leases many, many buildings (which actually helps the economy), but my guess would be that some folks would not want to go into the FBI Headquarters and this remote setting tends to offer some comfort to those poor tortured soluls you describe.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 21, 2004, 10:53 AMFriend of FBI,
Have you considered the thousands of individuals who have been unfairly denied employment because of policies emanating from this rather posh art gallery setting?? Although their lives were derailed due to the utter nonsense (polygraph screening) which has been completely debunked (found to be completely invalid as a diagnostic tool) by the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph study and report, many of these individuals, having taken exams elsewhere, may not have had the privilege of seeing the source of their problems, let alone having been offered any meaningful way of correcting such injustices.
Have you considered the thousands of individuals who have been unfairly denied employment because of policies emanating from this rather posh art gallery setting?? Although their lives were derailed due to the utter nonsense (polygraph screening) which has been completely debunked (found to be completely invalid as a diagnostic tool) by the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph study and report, many of these individuals, having taken exams elsewhere, may not have had the privilege of seeing the source of their problems, let alone having been offered any meaningful way of correcting such injustices.
Posted by Friend of FBI
- Jan 21, 2004, 08:32 AMMr. Maschke, please help me understand what possible value you saw in publishing pictures of the FBI polygraph location. Were you trying to help some unnamed person (or group) know where it is located for some devious purpose? Okay, the map is helpful to those coming there to seek a job, but the pictures?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 21, 2004, 04:02 AMRay,
We assume that the reader has made any substantive admissions before the "pre-test" phase of the polygraph interrogation. For law enforcement applicants, this is typically done in a pre-polygraph questionnaire. Note that the passage you cite appears at p. 132 of the 3rd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The subchapters on how polygraphers may expect truthful and deceptive subjects to behave (beginning at pp. 133 and 134, respectively) are provided so that truthful persons may learn how polygraphers are likely to expect them to comport themselves and avoid inadvertent behaviors that may tend to make them appear deceptive.
We assume that the reader has made any substantive admissions before the "pre-test" phase of the polygraph interrogation. For law enforcement applicants, this is typically done in a pre-polygraph questionnaire. Note that the passage you cite appears at p. 132 of the 3rd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The subchapters on how polygraphers may expect truthful and deceptive subjects to behave (beginning at pp. 133 and 134, respectively) are provided so that truthful persons may learn how polygraphers are likely to expect them to comport themselves and avoid inadvertent behaviors that may tend to make them appear deceptive.
Posted by Ray
- Jan 20, 2004, 09:42 PMGeorge,
You write:
In TLBTHLD ON pg.115 you say, "But in response to the relevant questions, you should make no admissions whatsoever." Sounds like a lie by omission to me.
You further explain in your "book" what examiners look for in terms of body language/verbal responses from both truthful and deceptive examinees. If you encourage truthful responses to relevant issues, why is there a need for this section?
You write:
QuoteThis is baseless slander. Those who run this site (Gino Scalabrini and myself) agree that law enforcement applicants should tell the truth regarding relevant issues.
In TLBTHLD ON pg.115 you say, "But in response to the relevant questions, you should make no admissions whatsoever." Sounds like a lie by omission to me.
You further explain in your "book" what examiners look for in terms of body language/verbal responses from both truthful and deceptive examinees. If you encourage truthful responses to relevant issues, why is there a need for this section?
Posted by Joe_Nobody
- Jan 19, 2004, 10:07 PMFunny you would choose to regail us on how you choose not to respond ... yet you still havent rebutted the claims that your information is false 
If this was a different type of web board I would call you a troll since you really do just seem to be attempting to Sow deceit and mistrust with no real fact to back it up.
Oh and dont wait up night for me to try and find something that would "Please you" since I am an honorable and truthfull person I doubt I could find anything quite that base.
Hows that for "Boring misdirection" LOL
You want meaningful, stop sparing with me and speak to the information posted by others on this thread that directly called what you said false... Cmon back up your blather with something other than misdirection and deceit......... No??? well thats not surprising.
Joe
If this was a different type of web board I would call you a troll since you really do just seem to be attempting to Sow deceit and mistrust with no real fact to back it up.
Oh and dont wait up night for me to try and find something that would "Please you" since I am an honorable and truthfull person I doubt I could find anything quite that base.
Hows that for "Boring misdirection" LOL
You want meaningful, stop sparing with me and speak to the information posted by others on this thread that directly called what you said false... Cmon back up your blather with something other than misdirection and deceit
......... No??? well thats not surprising.Joe
Posted by Torpedo
- Jan 19, 2004, 07:15 PMDear "Nobody"....how fitting! Ho hum, the reason I choose not to respond is for no other reason than many of you with nothing to say and offers of misdirected suggestions on how to "beat" the polygraph....bore me....say something meaningful and I might (only if it pleases me) enter back into your dicussions. Many of you are showing your ignorance...and I choose to let you ramble and show your true colors to those who read from this site. Itr is truly a shame though because some show some promise in wanting to engage in meaningful discussion...not many, but some.
Posted by Joe_Nobody
- Jan 15, 2004, 11:54 PMROFL,
Unfortunately Torpedo hasnt got that excuse... since he or she has posted in other threads as recently as the 13th that i can see
Joe
Unfortunately Torpedo hasnt got that excuse... since he or she has posted in other threads as recently as the 13th that i can see
Joe
Posted by anonymous
- Jan 15, 2004, 11:51 PMNo offense, Torpedo, but you sound just like the NSA
polygraphers; the crap about just telling your examiner
everything, and that they are only concerned about
major crimes. Well, they don't tell you that everything
goes back to the Defense Security Service. It seems
like polygraphers are "stamped out"; they all sound the
same. They are dishonest and manipulative...
polygraphers; the crap about just telling your examiner
everything, and that they are only concerned about
major crimes. Well, they don't tell you that everything
goes back to the Defense Security Service. It seems
like polygraphers are "stamped out"; they all sound the
same. They are dishonest and manipulative...
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 15, 2004, 11:39 PMJoe_Nobody
They are probably busy running charts on beginning of the year applicants that know countermeasures and they are taking a lot of time trying to guess who is applying them.
They are probably busy running charts on beginning of the year applicants that know countermeasures and they are taking a lot of time trying to guess who is applying them.