- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 13, 2009, 07:52 AMefitz_21224,
I'm very sorry to read of your unfortunate experience with the FBI. My views of the organization have undergone a similar transformation in the aftermath of my FBI polygraph experience. And I don't think it can be written off as sour grapes. There really seems to be a dangerous lack of critical thinking (and a serious ethical deficit) within the Bureau. Apart from the folly of pre-employment polygraph screening and the attendant on-going injustices, there are a growing number of high-profile cases where the FBI has run roughshod over innocent persons. Look, for example, at the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee (who was not a spy), Abdallah Higazy (who was not a terrorist), Dr. Thomas C. Butler (who was not a bio-terrorist, and whose work has saved millions of lives), and FBI Special Agent Rita Chang (who was not a spy).
I should point out that convicted spy Robert Hanssen was never polygraphed in the course of his FBI career. It was in a knee-jerk reaction to the Hanssen case that the FBI, against the advice of its most qualified scientific expert on polygraphy, greatly expanded the polygraph screening of currently serving FBI employees (like the hapless Rita Chang). Since that time, the polygraph has failed to catch any spies in the FBI. The only FBI spy convicted since then is Leandro Aragoncillo, who presumably passed his FBI pre-employment polygraph despite the fact that he had begun spying against the United States while serving as a marine detailed to the Office of the Vice President of the United States, well before his application for FBI employment.
I'm very sorry to read of your unfortunate experience with the FBI. My views of the organization have undergone a similar transformation in the aftermath of my FBI polygraph experience. And I don't think it can be written off as sour grapes. There really seems to be a dangerous lack of critical thinking (and a serious ethical deficit) within the Bureau. Apart from the folly of pre-employment polygraph screening and the attendant on-going injustices, there are a growing number of high-profile cases where the FBI has run roughshod over innocent persons. Look, for example, at the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee (who was not a spy), Abdallah Higazy (who was not a terrorist), Dr. Thomas C. Butler (who was not a bio-terrorist, and whose work has saved millions of lives), and FBI Special Agent Rita Chang (who was not a spy).
I should point out that convicted spy Robert Hanssen was never polygraphed in the course of his FBI career. It was in a knee-jerk reaction to the Hanssen case that the FBI, against the advice of its most qualified scientific expert on polygraphy, greatly expanded the polygraph screening of currently serving FBI employees (like the hapless Rita Chang). Since that time, the polygraph has failed to catch any spies in the FBI. The only FBI spy convicted since then is Leandro Aragoncillo, who presumably passed his FBI pre-employment polygraph despite the fact that he had begun spying against the United States while serving as a marine detailed to the Office of the Vice President of the United States, well before his application for FBI employment.
Posted by efitz_21224
- Nov 12, 2009, 11:12 AMI took the FBI polygraph this year and failed (all other parts of my app were strong passing scores i.e. phase I, phase II, pft, etc.).
My interviewer was convinced that I was showing deception on the drug use section. He simply would not believe that I had never done drugs, which I never have! The opportunity has been there for me via friends/parties/etc., though I've never had an interest in 'getting high' or even taking a 'hit'. I'm a fairly straight arrow, my only real 'crime' being that I ignore most posted speed limits...
I appealed, asking for another polygraph with a separate interviewer. I was denied this request and received a letter stating that no further employment within the FBI would ever be available to me.
To note, I've held a TS clearance for 5 years, currently work for the gov't on TS cleared work, and...have never done drugs! I offered to take any drug test they wanted, offer any tissue, hair, bone, etc. samples to no avail.
The FBI's polygraph is not only flawed, I'm almost certain it's used as a way for them to selectively remove candidates (discriminate) based on their whims.
As luck would have it, I did not put all my eggs in one basket and will be starting med school next year. In hindsight, I'm very happy with how things worked out in the sense that I'll be saving lives and contributing to the general well being of mankind vs. working for an organization that uses scientifically unreliable and unethical methods to choose 'character worthy' agents.
The FBI went from an agency I was considering employment, to an agency I view as backwards , non-progressive, and non-scientific.
The polygraph is a flawed, unreliable instrument, and the fact that the FBI bases their ultimate hiring decision on such results strongly undermines their credibility. In short, I do not believe they (the FBI) are honest. Come on - Robert Hanssen beat the poly for 20+ years...wake up FBI. Don't lie to us under the guise of black box 'science' that is nothing more than subjective conjecture.
I strongly urge anyone considering employment with the FBI to pursue alternate career paths. The opportunities in this world are endless; there's no need to waste your time with an agency so far removed from seeking the truth as the FBI.
My interviewer was convinced that I was showing deception on the drug use section. He simply would not believe that I had never done drugs, which I never have! The opportunity has been there for me via friends/parties/etc., though I've never had an interest in 'getting high' or even taking a 'hit'. I'm a fairly straight arrow, my only real 'crime' being that I ignore most posted speed limits...
I appealed, asking for another polygraph with a separate interviewer. I was denied this request and received a letter stating that no further employment within the FBI would ever be available to me.
To note, I've held a TS clearance for 5 years, currently work for the gov't on TS cleared work, and...have never done drugs! I offered to take any drug test they wanted, offer any tissue, hair, bone, etc. samples to no avail.
The FBI's polygraph is not only flawed, I'm almost certain it's used as a way for them to selectively remove candidates (discriminate) based on their whims.
As luck would have it, I did not put all my eggs in one basket and will be starting med school next year. In hindsight, I'm very happy with how things worked out in the sense that I'll be saving lives and contributing to the general well being of mankind vs. working for an organization that uses scientifically unreliable and unethical methods to choose 'character worthy' agents.
The FBI went from an agency I was considering employment, to an agency I view as backwards , non-progressive, and non-scientific.
The polygraph is a flawed, unreliable instrument, and the fact that the FBI bases their ultimate hiring decision on such results strongly undermines their credibility. In short, I do not believe they (the FBI) are honest. Come on - Robert Hanssen beat the poly for 20+ years...wake up FBI. Don't lie to us under the guise of black box 'science' that is nothing more than subjective conjecture.
I strongly urge anyone considering employment with the FBI to pursue alternate career paths. The opportunities in this world are endless; there's no need to waste your time with an agency so far removed from seeking the truth as the FBI.
Posted by cbob
- May 07, 2009, 04:17 PMso taking the fbi poly. is not a good idea if you want a career in law enforcement? you are saying if I would fail the poly I would have no chance of applying to any other law enforcemnt agency that involve a poly? I would hate for the oppurtunity to work for the fbi pass me by but I dont want to ruin my career if I happen to fail the poly.
Hard decisions... do you think its a better chance to pass a poly with another agency?
Hard decisions... do you think its a better chance to pass a poly with another agency?
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 05, 2009, 09:37 PMAnd there is no way in hell, given the population sample, that 50% of FBI applicants lied or were deceptive. Though my government polygraph chartist claimed 98% accuracy. If that is so, I think the FBI needs to be more careful who they invite to their employment screening.
TC
TC
Posted by Fair Chance
- May 05, 2009, 08:56 PMThe FBI will send about 3,000 letters of conditional employment with the expectation that two out of three will not successfully pass the background screening process that starts with the polygraph. I think that 50% is a conservative number of conditional employees removed from the application process by the polygraph. For every three that go in, one goes on to the background investigative process. This in itself does not bother me as much as the the two that do not come out are blacklisted for any other federal career that will involve a polygraph as part of their screening process. They will never have a chance to challenge their accuser, a man hidden behind a machine. Pontious Pilate, the examiner, washes his hands clean of the crime saying that the "machine" is responsible, not him. The rejected applicants will have to state that they took a polygraph for another agency. The examiner will ask what the outcome was. This question is moot because if the polygraph examination was successful, the applicant would not be applying for another position. The examiner will not want to make another examiner look bad for not passing the applicant so they will do a perfunctory examination and find the applicant not acceptable as to keep the charade going. Such a tangles web we weave.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 04, 2009, 01:37 PMQuotehey cm cullen.. what do you mean by "maybe not the Fbi"..? why is the lie detector diferent with the fbi?
The FBI polygraphers fail around half of all applicants. The worse abuse seems to come from them.
Half of all applicants at the FBI are deceptive? What bullshit!
TC
Posted by cbob
- May 04, 2009, 10:46 AMhey cm cullen.. what do you mean by "maybe not the Fbi"..? why is the lie detector diferent with the fbi?
Also, for anyone who wants to answer, including (i forgot ur screename but the person responsing to cm cullen)..... what if you have something minor to hide in the relevant questions that will cause someone not to get a job.... what do you suggest? or some sugesstions on what to do?
Also I understand the guy who wrote the book knows alot and I like what he is doing here to help people, but does he have experience with actually beating a polygraph or is he just mad that he failed one and did research without actually passing one having lied on one??
I would also like to talk to someone who actually beat a polygraph having lied on one..... those people are probably not on this site anymore because they have no need to take a look on here.
Again I dont want to take a polygraph, fail it and then ruin my career in law enforcement..
Also, for anyone who wants to answer, including (i forgot ur screename but the person responsing to cm cullen)..... what if you have something minor to hide in the relevant questions that will cause someone not to get a job.... what do you suggest? or some sugesstions on what to do?
Also I understand the guy who wrote the book knows alot and I like what he is doing here to help people, but does he have experience with actually beating a polygraph or is he just mad that he failed one and did research without actually passing one having lied on one??
I would also like to talk to someone who actually beat a polygraph having lied on one..... those people are probably not on this site anymore because they have no need to take a look on here.
Again I dont want to take a polygraph, fail it and then ruin my career in law enforcement..
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 02, 2009, 05:39 PMActually, I meant to say that there is no good time to attempt countermeasures because they won't help you, and it's not worth the risk. However, I've read that contracting your anal sphincter is a good exercise to improve sexual performance, so use it if you need it.
The question, as I've posed on this forum before is, Do you feel lucky? If you've really got nothing to hide, studies show that innocent examinees have nothing to gain from attempting countermeasures. There is also great risk. Here's what the NAS has to say about it:
Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.
However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
The question, as I've posed on this forum before is, Do you feel lucky? If you've really got nothing to hide, studies show that innocent examinees have nothing to gain from attempting countermeasures. There is also great risk. Here's what the NAS has to say about it:
Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.
However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 02, 2009, 03:31 PMQuoteI agree with this part of Mr. Cullen's post though: "Using CMs at the wrong time and in the wrong manner can indeed backfire on you."
Which is why it is important to learn WHEN and HOW to PROPERLY use them. As well as becoming familiar with some of the interrogation techniques which might be used against you during the polygraph, should the examiner become "aggressive" or "accusatory". Should this occur during a police polygraphi, the test should be immediately terminated as Ed Van Arsdale (Sancho Panza) suggests.
TC
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 01, 2009, 10:18 PMQuote from: T.Cullen on May 01, 2009, 08:52 PMSend a PM to George as he is the expert on cm usage.
Expert on CM usage? LMAO.
I agree with this part of Mr. Cullen's post though: "Using CMs at the wrong time and in the wrong manner can indeed backfire on you."
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 01, 2009, 08:52 PMSend a PM to George as he is the expert on cm usage. He wrote the TLBTLD.
The whole idea is to show a higher "reaction" to the control questions (if any), than to relevant questions. Relevant questions are pretty easy to ident. With the FBI, questions might be something like "Have you ever stolen anything with a value over $100?", or "have you ever intentionally divulged classified information to any unauthorized person"...etc.
But you should be prepared to explain reactions to controls. So, if you answered, "No", you haven't "stolen anything", they may say "well, I may have stolen a pen at school", or some other minor thing.
The most important thing to remember is you are WALKING INTO AN INTERROGATION! They are NOT your friend, they are NOT there to help you, though they will tell you they are. They will lie to you and claim the machine can actually detect "deception". It can't! They're whole goal is to see what dumb things they can get you to say or admit to. If you show persistent reaction on a given relevant question, they will ASSume you are lying. Their goal THEN, will be to get you to say anything at all with which they can distort and turn into a "disqualifying" admission. Read some of the "personal statements" linked on the home page of this website to see how they can twist, distort, and blow out of proportion insignificant info divulged by an innocent, but naive applicant.
It's easier for them to do this than you think. The will attempt to wear you out, trick you, try to be your buddy...etc. They are TRAINED INTERROGATORS! They will try to frustrate you, and get you to the point where you will say things you otherwise wouldn't just so you can "end this bullshit and get out of here".
Do a google search on "false confessions"., and "interrogation techniques". You might start out with this:
http://www.nasams.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1104868281.86/Conti%20article%20the%20psychology%20of%20false%20confessions.pdf
Then again, you might show little if any reaction to the relevant questions, and get out through it without too much difficulty (i dunno maybe not with the FBI), and pass. Don't be belligerent, angry or smart alecky with them though.
Again, talk to GM. Using CMs at the wrong time and in the wrong manner can indeed backfire on you.
TC
The whole idea is to show a higher "reaction" to the control questions (if any), than to relevant questions. Relevant questions are pretty easy to ident. With the FBI, questions might be something like "Have you ever stolen anything with a value over $100?", or "have you ever intentionally divulged classified information to any unauthorized person"...etc.
But you should be prepared to explain reactions to controls. So, if you answered, "No", you haven't "stolen anything", they may say "well, I may have stolen a pen at school", or some other minor thing.
The most important thing to remember is you are WALKING INTO AN INTERROGATION! They are NOT your friend, they are NOT there to help you, though they will tell you they are. They will lie to you and claim the machine can actually detect "deception". It can't! They're whole goal is to see what dumb things they can get you to say or admit to. If you show persistent reaction on a given relevant question, they will ASSume you are lying. Their goal THEN, will be to get you to say anything at all with which they can distort and turn into a "disqualifying" admission. Read some of the "personal statements" linked on the home page of this website to see how they can twist, distort, and blow out of proportion insignificant info divulged by an innocent, but naive applicant.
It's easier for them to do this than you think. The will attempt to wear you out, trick you, try to be your buddy...etc. They are TRAINED INTERROGATORS! They will try to frustrate you, and get you to the point where you will say things you otherwise wouldn't just so you can "end this bullshit and get out of here".
Do a google search on "false confessions"., and "interrogation techniques". You might start out with this:
http://www.nasams.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1104868281.86/Conti%20article%20the%20psychology%20of%20false%20confessions.pdf
Then again, you might show little if any reaction to the relevant questions, and get out through it without too much difficulty (i dunno maybe not with the FBI), and pass. Don't be belligerent, angry or smart alecky with them though.
Again, talk to GM. Using CMs at the wrong time and in the wrong manner can indeed backfire on you.
TC
Posted by cbob
- May 01, 2009, 05:39 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 21, 2009, 01:45 AMQuoteok so you are saying I should answer no I never lied or never stole anything and then use a counter measure while I lie about that? when I use a counter measure during a lie like that my responses will be higher then during my relevent questions..?
Correct, but you have to be prepared to explain your reaction on the "control". Just make sure it is not anything they could use to disqualify you. For example, admitting you stole a pen from work, not something major. The more they concentrate on you answers to a control questions, versus a relevant, the better.
Read the "lie behind the lie detector" it covers the use of CMs better than I could explain to you on this forum. Basically, the more you are disturbed and reactive on the control, versus the relevants, the greater you chances of passing. That and NOT letting them con you into admitting to anything they can distort and twist like their arrogant little minds!
And, as always, realize that a reaction on the machine does NOT mean deception no matter how much the examiner claims it does, but don't let on that you know that.
TC
Thank you for your help and responses.. I did read the "lie behind the lie detector" ..well, only chapters 3 and 4, (the chapters suggested). So I understand what you are saying ...But you are saying lie on the control questions like "did u ever steal anything?"... that would be a NO(which is a lie) so how would I be admitting anything? Do you understand what I am saying? even if I am asked "have you ever lied before?" I suppose to lie and say "No, I never lied before".. there is no explaining if you lie on these questions that i lie on.... but if I tell the truth then i would explain and say something minor..which is probably a bad idea... reading the book and doing research I came to the conclusion that during the control questions i just lie on something minor (which the examiner knows I am lying) and do a countermeasure during that so the examiner see's my reaction to lying which would be greater then my relevant...
just to understand better, what should or what would YOU answer to a question like "have you ever stole before?" or a question like "have you ever lied before?"... are you saying just lie on the minor control questions not on anything serious like lie to someone of authority?(which is prob still a control question)
Sorry its just alittle confusing and you threw me off when u did the example about stealing a pen.......
Hopefully you or anyone can help me out..thanks
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 21, 2009, 01:45 AMQuoteok so you are saying I should answer no I never lied or never stole anything and then use a counter measure while I lie about that? when I use a counter measure during a lie like that my responses will be higher then during my relevent questions..?
Correct, but you have to be prepared to explain your reaction on the "control". Just make sure it is not anything they could use to disqualify you. For example, admitting you stole a pen from work, not something major. The more they concentrate on you answers to a control questions, versus a relevant, the better.
Read the "lie behind the lie detector" it covers the use of CMs better than I could explain to you on this forum. Basically, the more you are disturbed and reactive on the control, versus the relevants, the greater you chances of passing. That and NOT letting them con you into admitting to anything they can distort and twist like their arrogant little minds!
And, as always, realize that a reaction on the machine does NOT mean deception no matter how much the examiner claims it does, but don't let on that you know that.
TC
Posted by cbob
- Apr 20, 2009, 02:39 PMok so you are saying I should answer no I never lied or never stole anything and then use a counter measure while I lie about that? when I use a counter measure during a lie like that my responses will be higher then during my relevent questions..?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 17, 2009, 05:49 PMQuoteDuring the control questions of a polygraph , lets say they ask "Have you ever told a lie?" and you answer truthfully and say "yes" should you still use countermeasures when answering truthfully to control questions? Or should you lie on purpose and say no I never told a lie and then a use a countermeasure?
The later. They expect you to answer "no". If you answer "yes" they will ask you to explain, the rephrase the question "other than what you told me, have you ever....."
Some polygraph operators will get irate if you keep answering "yes" to a control question. Poor dears.
TC