- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ezhiskaz
- Nov 10, 2011, 08:54 AMIt's all bull****, it's ridiculous that they even base anything off of the poly. I've passed some, and failed others on the exact same questions. It's pretty much up to the person giving the exam whether you pass or fail, don't think too much of it.
Posted by DippityShurff
- Aug 16, 2007, 07:16 PMQuote from: Don Weinstein on Nov 21, 2001, 06:48 PMMr. Maschke, First and foremost, so there is no confusion, I am pro-polygraph, a long term member of the American Polygraph Association, it;s past President and now Chairman of the Board. I have often read your comments on your web site and simply passed them off, which now in retospect was probably a mistake on my part. You have rountinely mislead people about the polygraph and the time for it to stop has come. You certainly have the right to state your beliefs, and I will defend to the death, your right to state them....but I think it only fair that what you say should at the very least be truthful. When you purposely mislead people, I think you have gone too far. If you want to have any credibility at all, then tell the truth. I am of course referring to your statement that was posted on 21 Nov where you use your web site headline to proclaim "LAPD Dropping Requirement to Pass Polygraph". I read your page numerous times and no such statement is there. Granted you state that "it appears...." giving yourself some "wiggle room", but your statement is patently false. First, no where in the statement does it say that such a requirement is being considered......to even think so would be ludicrous. In the portions to which I presume you are referring, the comment is made that "unsupported claims of misconduct.....shall not be the grounds for a protest....". Mr. Maschke, nowhere in that statement could it possibly be inferred that a requirement to pass a polygraph is being dropped. To double check, I telephoned LAPD and they assured me that no such provision is being consiodered. What this comes down to is that your statemernt is false, you know it is false, and all you are trying to do is to bait someone to believe what you are syaing is the truth and that your comments wil somehow undermine the profession of polygraph. I doubt seriously if you will permit this posting to be shown to your readers, but nonetheless, I have had my say and you and those who blindly follow your lead know that what you have said is a lie .
Sir, the deletion of the requirement that a polygraph be passed is in effect, a recision of that requirement. George has not lied.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 24, 2007, 09:22 AMQuote from: gorgikla22 on Apr 18, 2007, 02:57 PMWhat was the result from this meeting? Can you still fail a polygraph and be hired with LAPD?.......... I have heard of two cases now that a applicant has failed there plygraph, but has still been hired.
My understanding is that while applicants are required to pass the polygraph in order to be hired, failing the polygraph does not result in a permanent bar to LAPD employment (as it had once done). I believe that those who fail the LAPD polygraph may re-apply after one year.
Posted by gorgikla22
- Apr 18, 2007, 02:57 PMWhat was the result from this meeting? Can you still fail a polygraph and be hired with LAPD?.......... I have heard of two cases now that a applicant has failed there plygraph, but has still been hired.
Posted by importscout
- Jul 08, 2005, 09:43 AMIt certainly would be interesting. This thread confirms my suspicions that the poly is a 'weed out tool' used to cut back on the number of applicants. All the more reason to use every countermeasure and come in under the radar.
The threat of the polygraph when you walk in to your written test causes many to fess to using drugs, etc., that would otherwise not show up on a drug test, thereby forcing applicants to weed themselves out.
More and more, I realize that the so-called lie detector is really a russian-roulette game to weed out applicants and intimidating them into incriminating themselves. Fair employment hiring practices indeed!!
The threat of the polygraph when you walk in to your written test causes many to fess to using drugs, etc., that would otherwise not show up on a drug test, thereby forcing applicants to weed themselves out.
More and more, I realize that the so-called lie detector is really a russian-roulette game to weed out applicants and intimidating them into incriminating themselves. Fair employment hiring practices indeed!!
Posted by Matty
- Jul 06, 2005, 10:50 PMWhat ever happened to that guy who was the head of the Polygraph Dept. for LAPD who was accused of changing the results of peoples tests and failing people who passed and passing people who failed. Could this bum still have a job? Wouldn't this be a great news story for the Press or electronic media?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 15, 2002, 11:24 AMQuote from: beech_trees on Feb 15, 2002, 11:03 AM
It would appear that they have an air-tight 'out', as any claims of polygraph interrogator misconduct, or the fallibity of the testing instrument, may be summarily dismissed as 'unsupported'.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Posted by beech trees
- Feb 15, 2002, 11:03 AMThe two working days immediately following a candidate's interview, physical abilities test, or performance test, or pre-employment polygraph test shall be designated as a review period during which the candidate may submit a protest against the conduct of his/her test or the competency of the raters...
Two days to file a complaint, ok....
Unsupported claims of misconduct and all claims against the judgment of the raters in assigning scores for essay, interview, physical abilities, or performance, or preemployment polygraph tests shall not be grounds for a protest under Sec 4.20, 4.22 or 4.23...
It would appear that they have an air-tight 'out', as any claims of polygraph interrogator misconduct, or the fallibity of the testing instrument, may be summarily dismissed as 'unsupported'.
Two days to file a complaint, ok....
Unsupported claims of misconduct and all claims against the judgment of the raters in assigning scores for essay, interview, physical abilities, or performance, or preemployment polygraph tests shall not be grounds for a protest under Sec 4.20, 4.22 or 4.23...
It would appear that they have an air-tight 'out', as any claims of polygraph interrogator misconduct, or the fallibity of the testing instrument, may be summarily dismissed as 'unsupported'.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 15, 2002, 03:45 AMThe changes to the Civil Service Commission rules discussed above were adopted by the Commission (apparently without comment) on 6 December 2001. You'll find this noted in the minutes for that meeting:
http://www.lacity.org/per/011206.pdf
http://www.lacity.org/per/011206.pdf
Posted by johndoeII
- Feb 14, 2002, 09:08 PMHas there been any update on LAPD's Polygraph?
Posted by hot Copp
- Dec 29, 2001, 06:17 AM
All I got to say is this jack-ass who is so pro-polygraph is probably Fat short and bald and takes it in the shitter. People who belong to associations to test people that lie have no life. Most of them need to get a life! 
Posted by beech trees
- Dec 25, 2001, 07:48 PMLadies and Gentlemen,
Certainly I have given former American Polygraphers Association President Don Weinstein every opportunity to back up his gratuitous assertions in this thread with facts. Since he is either unable or unwilling to do so, I think it's safe to say he cannot, and thus his post may be dismissed as yet another childish attack from the pro-polygraph community.
BT
Certainly I have given former American Polygraphers Association President Don Weinstein every opportunity to back up his gratuitous assertions in this thread with facts. Since he is either unable or unwilling to do so, I think it's safe to say he cannot, and thus his post may be dismissed as yet another childish attack from the pro-polygraph community.
BT
Posted by AMM
- Dec 08, 2001, 03:24 PMFred:
Thanks for the congrats. It's been a while, hasn't it?
As for your questions:
Amazingly, my second examiner (a polygrapher working under the LAPD/USIS contract) didn't really seem to care about my first exam. We talked about what appeared to be areas of concern, but he was extremely professional. I must say his demeanor made me suspect, but the experience was completely different from my first.
Following the "in-test" phase I was mentally preparing myself for an interrogation, but it never came! It's possible that I produced charts so "truthful" that he didn't feel the need. I will send you a copy of an email I sent to George that goes into a little more detail.
R,
AMM
Thanks for the congrats. It's been a while, hasn't it?
As for your questions:
Amazingly, my second examiner (a polygrapher working under the LAPD/USIS contract) didn't really seem to care about my first exam. We talked about what appeared to be areas of concern, but he was extremely professional. I must say his demeanor made me suspect, but the experience was completely different from my first.
Following the "in-test" phase I was mentally preparing myself for an interrogation, but it never came! It's possible that I produced charts so "truthful" that he didn't feel the need. I will send you a copy of an email I sent to George that goes into a little more detail.
R,
AMM
Posted by Fred F.
- Dec 08, 2001, 12:30 AMQuoteMost recently, I was asked to take a second polygraph "exam" apparently to dispel any lingering doubts the City might have about me. Not wanting to be a false positive for a second time, I employed countermeasures to ensure my passing. I followed the behavioral countermeasures described in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector," and the cardio/breathing countermeasures described by Doug Williams. They worked exactly as advertised and I passed without any problems.
AMM,
CONGRATULATIONS !!!
Glad to see that you were successful in your endeavor. Lets just hope that the rest of your pre-employment process goes smoothly and they don't try to haunt you with the earlier "False Positive".
A couple of questions for you, did the second polygrapher give you any problems in relation to the first test or was it a mute issue?
Did you have a post test "interrogation"?
Good Luck with the rest of your processing
Fred F.
Posted by AMM
- Dec 07, 2001, 12:28 AMGeorge:
Your letter to the Los Angeles Board of Civil Service Commissioners was (as usual) right on the mark. While your concise and persuasive argument should give the Board something to think about, I doubt they will reverse their policy since they undoubtedly rely on information provided to them by polygraphers. My experience with LAPD's background investigation unit and Public Safety Employment Division seems to indicate they have almost complete faith in the polygraph's accuracy and their examiners ability to detect countermeasures. I truly believe if they knew how applicants were being treated, they would have a very different opinion of both the hiring process and the polygraph.
For anyone reading this post that isn't familiar with my situation, I am currently an applicant for the Los Angeles Police Department. Earlier this year, I was falsely accused of deception on my pre-employment polygraph. I was completely dumbfounded by the allegation since I knew I had told the truth. (Like most applicants, I thought all I had to do was tell the truth and get ready for the academy.) I disputed the "exam" results, appealed my removal from the hiring process, and armed myself with information from Antipolygraph.org and Doug Williams manual "How to Sting the Polygraph." Most recently, I was asked to take a second polygraph "exam" apparently to dispel any lingering doubts the City might have about me. Not wanting to be a false positive for a second time, I employed countermeasures to ensure my passing. I followed the behavioral countermeasures described in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector," and the cardio/breathing countermeasures described by Doug Williams. They worked exactly as advertised and I passed without any problems. (This, by the way, positively refutes Public Safety Employment Division's claim they would be able to catch anyone using countermeasures.) I would recommend to anyone scheduled to take a pre-employment polygraph to study as much information about the polygraph as possible and to employ effective countermeasures to ensure passing.
AMM
Your letter to the Los Angeles Board of Civil Service Commissioners was (as usual) right on the mark. While your concise and persuasive argument should give the Board something to think about, I doubt they will reverse their policy since they undoubtedly rely on information provided to them by polygraphers. My experience with LAPD's background investigation unit and Public Safety Employment Division seems to indicate they have almost complete faith in the polygraph's accuracy and their examiners ability to detect countermeasures. I truly believe if they knew how applicants were being treated, they would have a very different opinion of both the hiring process and the polygraph.
For anyone reading this post that isn't familiar with my situation, I am currently an applicant for the Los Angeles Police Department. Earlier this year, I was falsely accused of deception on my pre-employment polygraph. I was completely dumbfounded by the allegation since I knew I had told the truth. (Like most applicants, I thought all I had to do was tell the truth and get ready for the academy.) I disputed the "exam" results, appealed my removal from the hiring process, and armed myself with information from Antipolygraph.org and Doug Williams manual "How to Sting the Polygraph." Most recently, I was asked to take a second polygraph "exam" apparently to dispel any lingering doubts the City might have about me. Not wanting to be a false positive for a second time, I employed countermeasures to ensure my passing. I followed the behavioral countermeasures described in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector," and the cardio/breathing countermeasures described by Doug Williams. They worked exactly as advertised and I passed without any problems. (This, by the way, positively refutes Public Safety Employment Division's claim they would be able to catch anyone using countermeasures.) I would recommend to anyone scheduled to take a pre-employment polygraph to study as much information about the polygraph as possible and to employ effective countermeasures to ensure passing.
AMM